Thought we could start a region room to discuss the rankings, etc.
Great Lakes Region
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19-1
2. Wooster 22-3 17-2
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6
4. Hope 21-3 14-3
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4
Ah, what a fine mess the NCAA has gotten themselves into. Arguably the second or third best team is #6 and in danger of not making the field, while arguably the weakest of those six is #1.
:-[
Final: Otterbein 52, Ohio Northern 51. Last second shot by OTT's Ousely goes in. The Cards advance to take on Capital for round three Friday night.
This will have a big impact on next weeks secret rankings.
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2007, 09:45:15 PM
Final: Otterbein 52, Ohio Northern 51. Last second shot by OTT's Ousely goes in. The Cards advance to take on Capital for round three Friday night.
This will have a big impact on next weeks secret rankings.
Secrets, secrets are no fun...
I think it will be very interesting to see where these 6 teams end up in the tourney, where they play, and against whom.
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2007, 09:45:15 PM
Final: Otterbein 52, Ohio Northern 51. Last second shot by OTT's Ousely goes in. The Cards advance to take on Capital for round three Friday night.
This will have a big impact on next weeks secret rankings.
Namely, the impact of helping the NCAC Pool C and hurting ONU's chances of even being invited to the dance. What a fall for ONU. After starting the season 11-1, including wins over Wittenberg and Wooster, they end the season 8-6 and are in serious Pool C danger.
I think they are done
Sac,
You're probably right. David argued on the NCAC board that Wittenberg probably can't get a C bid either. We could be looking at only the four AQ bids making it from this entire region: Lake Erie, Wooster, Hope, and John Carroll. Those are also the only four that are solid "if not As, then Cs" in the whole region.
Well losing in the conference final is better than losing in a quarterfinal. Semi-Final conference tournament losers rarely get C's. I think Witt's in a lot better shape after tonight. They probably only have to worry if someone other than JCU wins the OAC tournament. Capital can't be far off the regional rankings.
Great Lakes Region (Adjusted through Wed. games)
Team Overall In-Region (%) QoWI (May be missing changes in opp.'s win % levels)
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19-1 (.950) 10.600 (Hosts Hilbert Fri.- AMCC Semis)
2. Wooster 23-3 18-2 (.900) 10.000 (Hosts Wabash Fri.- NCAC semis
3. John Carroll 18-8 17-6 (.739) 10.130 (Plays B-W Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
4. Hope 22-3 15-3 (.833) 9.667 (Hosts Adrian Fri.- MIAA semis)
5. Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (.667) 9.619 (lost to Otterbein in OAC quarters)
6. Wittenberg 22-4 17-4 (.810) 9.476 (Plays OWU Fri.- NCAC semis)
Capital 17-8 17-8 (.680) 9.520 (Hosts Otterbein Fri.- OAC semis)
Baldwin-Wallace 18-8 15-6 (.714) 9.381 (Plays JCU Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
Westminster 18-7 16-3 (.842) 9.737 (Hosts Grove City Thurs.- PrAC semis)
Edit: Added matchups; fixed Wittenberg's QoWI; Added Westminster, per David's post below.
Looking at that........if everyone wins who's supposed to, we might not get any Great Lakes Pool C's. :-\
A Capital loss in the next round drops everyone's qowi by 4pts as they drop below .667........that would hurt any OAC's teams chances.
Yes. I think Wittenberg, Capital, and Baldwin-Wallace all have to plan on winning the Pool A bid to make the tournament. Witt's QoWI really hurts them, and a win over OWU (+13) coupled with a loss to Wooster (+7) only raises their QoWI to 9.523. If Capital loses, it's 9.435. Plus, going 1-1 lowers their in-region winning percentage to 18-5 (.783)- still good, but not incredible.
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 21, 2007, 11:26:03 PM
Yes. I think Wittenberg, Capital, and Baldwin-Wallace all have to plan on winning the Pool A bid to make the tournament. Witt's QoWI really hurts them, and a win over OWU (+13) coupled with a loss to Wooster (+7) only raises their QoWI to 9.523. If Capital loses, it's 9.435. Plus, going 1-1 lowers their in-region winning percentage to 18-5 (.783)- still good, but not incredible.
scotsbrod and sac - I agree with both of you that the Great Lakes region probably won't get any Pool C bids this year unless Lake Erie, Wooster, John Carroll or Hope fail to win a Pool A bid. >:(
As smedindy noted, the current Great Lakes Region rankings show why the QoWI is such a miserable system. My guess is that #6 Wittenberg would beat the pants off #1 Lake Erie on a neutral floor by 20 points or more....yet the Tigers are at risk of not even making the dance because the stupid QoWI methodology rewards teams like Lake Erie for beating up on all the cupcakes in the AMCC conference.
Last year, Witt beat Lake Erie by 36 points in the first round of the NCAA tourney and I like to see that matchup again (same result likely) but the NCAA selection committee probably will prevent that scenario.
As David's excellent analysis (QoWI list) on the Pool C board demonstrates, the 19 Pool C bids will likely go to teams that have a QoWI of 9.70 or higher
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 22, 2007, 12:09:59 AM
Last year, Witt beat Lake Erie by 36 points in the first round of the NCAA tourney and I like to see that matchup again (same result likely) but the NCAA selection committee probably will prevent that scenario.
I think this year the Lake Erie-Wittenberg matchup would be closer. Witt is not quite the final-four bound team it was last year, and Lake Erie is probably somewhat better this year than they were last year.
That said, I entirely agree with you that the other GL regionally ranked teams would probably all beat Lake Erie. Erie would probably be lucky to go 1-4 in a round robin against them. They will need to beat someone in the NCAAs to be given national credibility.
ONU is done. Mark it down.
Don't forget about Westminster (PA) in this discussion. They're at 9.737 on QoWI, and have an in-region win % of .842. They're in a Pool B conference, but it looks like they might miss out on a B bid, which makes them eligible for a C. As of this moment, I think they're ahead of ONU and quite close to Witt--and they can win out and still be a 'C' candidate (unlike the other teams, who are only 'C' candidates if they lose again.)
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 21, 2007, 11:00:53 PM
Great Lakes Region (Adjusted through Wed. games)
Team Overall In-Region (%) QoWI (May be missing changes in opp.'s win % levels)
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19-1 (.950) 10.600 (Hosts Hilbert Fri.- AMCC Semis)
2. Wooster 23-3 18-2 (.900) 10.000 (Hosts Wabash Fri.- NCAC semis
3. John Carroll 18-8 17-6 (.739) 10.130 (Plays B-W Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
4. Hope 22-3 15-3 (.833) 9.667 (Hosts Adrian Fri.- MIAA semis)
5. Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (.667) 9.619 (lost to Otterbein in OAC quarters)
6. Wittenberg 22-4 17-4 (.810) 9.476 (Plays OWU Fri.- NCAC semis)
Capital 17-8 17-8 (.680) 9.520 (Hosts Otterbein Fri.- OAC semis)
Baldwin-Wallace 18-8 15-6 (.714) 9.381 (Plays JCU Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
Edit: Added Friday matchups; fixed Wittenberg's QoWI.
I think that Wooster's QOWI went up to 10.1 with Calvin's win, which raised their in-region record to .667. Hope's must have gone up as well, but I haven't done those calculations.
I added Westminster to the listing I made above- David's right, they appear to be in better shape than most GL teams for a C. I didn't realize that Pool B teams can become Pool C teams. Gotta read that handbook closer!
Quote from: cmhscots on February 22, 2007, 12:48:10 AM
I think that Wooster's QOWI went up to 10.1 with Calvin's win, which raised their in-region record to .667. Hope's must have gone up as well, but I haven't done those calculations.
Wooster QoWI: 200/20 games + 2 (for Calvin's increase) = 202/20, 10.100
Hope QoWI: 174/18 games + 6 (Calvin increase x 3 meetings) = 180/18, 10.000
Great Lakes Region (Adjusted through Wed. games)
Team Overall In-Region (%) QoWI (Double-checking welcome!)
Lake Erie 23-2 19-1 (.950) 10.600 (Hosts Hilbert Fri.- AMCC Semis)
Wooster 23-3 18-2 (.900) 10.100 (Hosts Wabash Fri.- NCAC semis
Hope 22-3 15-3 (.833) 10.000 (Hosts Adrian Fri.- MIAA semis)
John Carroll 18-8 17-6 (.739) 10.130 (Plays B-W Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
Westminster 18-7 16-3 (.842) 9.737 (Hosts Grove City Thurs.- PrAC semis)
Wittenberg 22-4 17-4 (.810) 9.476 (Plays OWU Fri.- NCAC semis)
Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (.667) 9.619 (lost to Otterbein in OAC quarters)
Capital 17-8 17-8 (.680) 9.520 (Hosts Otterbein Fri.- OAC semis)
Baldwin-Wallace 18-8 15-6 (.714) 9.381 (Plays JCU Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
cmhscots,
I did make the adjustments to Wooster and Hope's QoWI for Calvin's increase, but the extra points may be short-lived, because unless Calvin wins the MIAA Tournament, the extra in-region loss will push them back below the .667 threshold- going 1-1 leaves Calvin at 13-7, .650%.
I have Calvin at 13-6 currently, so if they reach the finals they'd be 14-6, and could only fall to 14-7 (still .667). If they lose in the semis, they fall below .667, but then 3state has reached .667!
If my numbers are correct, Hope looks pretty darn safe. Win out, they are of course AQ. Lose to Calvin, their QOWI is up enough to make them a pretty certain C. Lose to Tri State, they win the AQ since 3State is ineligible. Their only danger would be lose in the semis to Adrian, but since they led (in Adrian) by 57-14 before coasting to whatever the final was, I'd say Hope is a lock.
This thought just got me out of bed... :P
A non-trivial aspect of ONU's loss to Otterbein tonight is that they will surely now not be among the six "ranked" teams in the final Super-Secret GL ranking. That improves Wooster and Wittenberg in "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" (by one game each,) and this is one of the five primary selection/ranking criterion. Furthermore, it significantly hurts JCU and Capital in the same criterion, as both teams swept the PBs.
Good night again. :D
LOL, that's awesome that you came back to post that. :)
Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 01:43:55 AM
This thought just got me out of bed... :P
A non-trivial aspect of ONU's loss to Otterbein tonight is that they will surely now not be among the six "ranked" teams in the final Super-Secret GL ranking. That improves Wooster and Wittenberg in "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" (by one game each,) and this is one of the five primary selection/ranking criterion. Furthermore, it significantly hurts JCU and Capital in the same criterion, as both teams swept the PBs.
Good night again. :D
Wow. I don't know if my brain ever works this hard.
Fun With QOWI
Since Hope is the only viable Pool C candidate from the MIAA, I can't see a 7 in-region loss Calvin having even the remotist of chances.
Lets say Tri-State win the MIAA Tournament Championship
Regardless of who TSU beat in the final Hope would get the automatic bid by being the MIAA's regular season champ, talk about a stressless matchup if they face TSU.
Hope's QOWI would like this
TSU win over Hope.............9.8
TSU win over Adrian...........9.58
Damaging for seeding purposes, but the Dutchmen would be dancing which is what we in Holland want.
What if Adrian wins the MIAA Tournament.
Hope's QOWI would look like this
Adrian win over Tri-State........9.36
Adrian win over Calvin............9.36
Either of these results would be the death of Hope's Pool C chances.
So you can see, Adrian winning Friday would put Hope in the already known postition of having to root against the Bulldogs.
What if Calvin wins the MIAA Tournanment.......gets a bit interesting here
Hope QOWI
Calvin win over Hope.............9.9---respectable, but firmly on the bubble as a Pool C candidate.
Calvin win over Adrian...........10.21--- respectable, but probably enough to get a C bid, but would likely be one the last C's taken.
What if Hope wins the MIAA Tournament.........
Obviously the auto-bid goes to Hope, but QOWI would still factor in seeding and pairings, and possibly hosting although doubtfull Hope's in that position.
Hope win over TSU........9.9------not real impressive for seeding, but hey it would be a stressfree game, since Hope would be in win or lose
Hope win over Calvin......10.11----looks good, might get a 3 or 4 seed,
.......wait a minute lets back things up here
Hope over Calvin = 10.11
Calvin over Adrian = 10.21
So, let me get this straight, its more beneficial to Hope's QOWI to lose to Adrian and root for Calvin to beat Adrian ? ??? :D
Lets also keep in mind Wheaton is still alive, winning the CCIW tournament would add .1 to all of Hope's QOWI calculation.
So ?????? Go Wheaton, Go Calvin ? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Sac, thanks for that fascinating list of scenarios.
And that list proves to me why the QoWI is such a mess. Hope is somehow better of losing tomorrow as long as Calvin wins out than it is if it wins out or if it wins tomorrow then loses Saturday. That is absolutely ridiculous! What a mess! >:(
sac
- I love it, you always seem to find these little things that once again point out how futile the NCAA and in this case QOWI are.
and I hate the thought that (strictly focusing on QOWI) we should lose tomorrow and then root for Calvin. I don't know which would be worse or harder to take - losing tomorrow or rooting for Calvin. ;)
It's just so ridiculous that a loss could provide a better seeding thatn 2 wins (of course QOWI isn't the only criteria)
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 22, 2007, 04:23:16 PM
Sac, thanks for that fascinating list of scenarios.
And that list proves to me why the QoWI is such a mess. Hope is somehow better of losing tomorrow as long as Calvin wins out than it is if it wins out or if it wins tomorrow then loses Saturday. That is absolutely ridiculous! What a mess! >:(
I think I might puke! :-\ :P (Anyone have a green-faced smiley?)
Great Lakes Region (Adjusted through Wed. games)
Team Overall In-Region (%) QoWI (Double-checking welcome!)
Lake Erie 23-2 19-1 (.950) 10.600 (Hosts Hilbert Fri.- AMCC Semis)
Wooster 23-3 18-2 (.900) 10.100 (Hosts Wabash Fri.- NCAC semis
Hope 22-3 15-3 (.833) 10.000 (Hosts Adrian Fri.- MIAA semis)
John Carroll 18-8 17-6 (.739) 10.130 (Plays B-W Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
Westminster* 18-7 16-3 (.842) 9.737 (Hosts Grove City Thurs.- PrAC semis)
Wittenberg 22-4 17-4 (.810) 9.476 (Plays OWU Fri.- NCAC semis)
Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (.667) 9.619 (lost to Otterbein in OAC quarters)
Capital 17-8 17-8 (.680) 9.520 (Hosts Otterbein Fri.- OAC semis)
Baldwin-Wallace 18-8 15-6 (.714) 9.381 (Plays JCU Fri. @ Capital- OAC semis)
* Westminster is now likely a Pool B selection, with the sudden expansion of Pool B and the shrinking Pool C.
You absolutely have to be joking. Losing to Adrian could actually increase their QoWI. We're not in Kansas anymore. ??? :P :-[
Good work sac.
Would that difference in QOWI from letting Adrian win and lose to Calvin have more of an effect than the obvious addition of an in-region loss, however? QOWI is weighed against the regional record still, correct?
Quote from: andersdy on February 22, 2007, 09:32:25 PM
Would that difference in QOWI from letting Adrian win and lose to Calvin have more of an effect than the obvious addition of an in-region loss, however? QOWI is weighed against the regional record still, correct?
The in-region loss would definately balance it out............but the fact that losing helps this supposedly important number in the selection, seeding and pairings considerations is just absolutely looney!
Quote from: andersdy on February 22, 2007, 09:32:25 PM
Would that difference in QOWI from letting Adrian win and lose to Calvin have more of an effect than the obvious addition of an in-region loss, however? QOWI is weighed against the regional record still, correct?
The voters clearly prefer John Carroll's better QOWI to Wittenberg's better regional W-L record
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2007, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: andersdy on February 22, 2007, 09:32:25 PM
Would that difference in QOWI from letting Adrian win and lose to Calvin have more of an effect than the obvious addition of an in-region loss, however? QOWI is weighed against the regional record still, correct?
The voters clearly prefer John Carroll's better QOWI to Wittenberg's better regional W-L record
There's other criteria there, like record vs ranked teams, head-to-head. If I remember an earlier post somewhere JCU graded out better..........but ONU was included in the rankings.....they'll surely drop now.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2007, 01:38:13 AM
I have Calvin at 13-6 currently, so if they reach the finals they'd be 14-6, and could only fall to 14-7 (still .667). If they lose in the semis, they fall below .667, but then 3state has reached .667!
If my numbers are correct, Hope looks pretty darn safe. Win out, they are of course AQ. Lose to Calvin, their QOWI is up enough to make them a pretty certain C. Lose to Tri State, they win the AQ since 3State is ineligible. Their only danger would be lose in the semis to Adrian, but since they led (in Adrian) by 57-14 before coasting to whatever the final was, I'd say Hope is a lock.
D3Hoops has Calvin at 12-6. Does either of the Carthage/Wheaton games count for Calvin? Neither is marked as in-region on their results page. (http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Calvin&conf=MIAA)
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 22, 2007, 10:04:21 PM
D3Hoops has Calvin at 12-6. Does either of the Carthage/Wheaton games count for Calvin? Neither is marked as in-region on their results page. (http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Calvin&conf=MIAA)
This is for my fellow MIAAers
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ryanmcbain.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fbeatdeadhorse.gif&hash=c8e3354355cf8e89814dc1e161f52db25791bccd)
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 22, 2007, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2007, 01:38:13 AM
I have Calvin at 13-6 currently, so if they reach the finals they'd be 14-6, and could only fall to 14-7 (still .667). If they lose in the semis, they fall below .667, but then 3state has reached .667!
If my numbers are correct, Hope looks pretty darn safe. Win out, they are of course AQ. Lose to Calvin, their QOWI is up enough to make them a pretty certain C. Lose to Tri State, they win the AQ since 3State is ineligible. Their only danger would be lose in the semis to Adrian, but since they led (in Adrian) by 57-14 before coasting to whatever the final was, I'd say Hope is a lock.
D3Hoops has Calvin at 12-6. Does either of the Carthage/Wheaton games count for Calvin? Neither is marked as in-region on their results page. (http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Calvin&conf=MIAA)
You are correct - I used the same source, but must have miscounted.
KS, the 'dead horse' was unfair - my arithmetic was in question, not the regional nature of games!
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2007, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 22, 2007, 10:04:21 PM
D3Hoops has Calvin at 12-6. Does either of the Carthage/Wheaton games count for Calvin? Neither is marked as in-region on their results page. (http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Calvin&conf=MIAA)
This is for my fellow MIAAers
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ryanmcbain.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fbeatdeadhorse.gif&hash=c8e3354355cf8e89814dc1e161f52db25791bccd)
To determine whether or not Wheaton or Carthage are in-region for Hope and Calvin there are some questions you need to ask yourself
1. What year is this?
2. What mapping software are you using?
3. Is a ferry available?
4. Is it opposite day?
If you have any problems answering any of those questions, revert to flipping a coin. Or, you can never go wrong by answering, "maybe"
Carthage and Wheaton are not in region for Calvin .........this year :P
I'm going to attemp a breakdown of the GL Pool C contenders on almost all the primary criteria. I'm going to use Wednesday's regional rankings for the "results vs. regionally ranked teams;" however, I am going to use italics where ONU falling from the regional rankings will affect things, or where Capital joining them would. I bolded the italics where something must change (ie. JCU and BW play tomorrow night).
Also, since I find it hard to consider all the possible results vs. common regional opponents, and I assume this criterion is best evaluated between two particular teams, and not in a general sense, I left it out of my stats.
The Five Primary Criteria:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• Quality-of-Wins-Index (only contests versus regional competition)
• In-region head-to-head competition
• In-region results vs. common regional opponents
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams
Taking the contenders (arranged by win %; each team has two lines of info):
Team Region Win % (Record) QoWI
In-region head-to-head results; Results vs. regionally ranked teams (Wed. rankings)
Lake Erie .950 (19-1) 10.600
No head-to-head results with Pool C contenders; No results vs. regionally ranked teams
Wooster .900 (18-2) 10.100
Witt: 1-1, ONU 0-1; 1-2 vs. regionally ranked teams
Hope .833 (15-3) 10.000
No head-to-head results with Pool C contenders; no results vs. regionally ranked teams
Wittenberg .810 (17-4) 9.476
Woo: 1-1, ONU 0-1, Capital 1-0; 1-2 vs. regionally ranked teams
Westminster .800 (16-4) 9.450
No head-to-head results with Pool C contenders; no results vs. regionally ranked teams
John Carroll .739 (17-6) 10.130
ONU: 2-0, Capital: 1-1, B-W: 0-2; 2-0 vs. regionally ranked teams
Baldwin-Wallace .714 (15-6) 9.381
ONU: 1-1, Capital: 1-1, JCU: 2-0; 3-1 vs. regionally ranked teams
Capital .680 (17-8) 9.520
ONU: 2-0, B-W: 1-1, JCU: 1-1; 3-1 vs. regionally ranked teams
Ohio Northern .667 (14-7) 9.619
Woo: 1-0, Witt 1-0, Capital: 0-2, B-W: 1-1, JCU: 0-2; 2-2 vs. regionally ranked teams
scotsbrod - it looks like there is something amiss in your QOWI for Hope. According to the QOWI posted by Pat yesterday, Hope should be at 9.667. I'm assuming this is due to Carthage's loss to Wheaton, which put them under .667 in region for the year.
Stevens Tech lost, so there goes another "C". Stevens Tech, Messiah, Guilford...any other 'locks' for a "C"??
What this means is that the GL may have some issues.
Smed - don't forget about the UAA teams - loser of Wash U and Chicago tomorrow would be a lock, Rochester, Brandeis Rochester all under consideration.
I haven't looked at Stevens or Messiah, but I don't think Guilford is a lock. I do think Oshkosh is, though, and so is the loser of Saturday's Stevens Point/La Crosse game.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2007, 11:03:55 AM
I haven't looked at Stevens or Messiah, but I don't think Guilford is a lock. I do think Oshkosh is, though, and so is the loser of Saturday's Stevens Point/La Crosse game.
You think the WIAC is going to get 3 teams in David? Not that they aren't deserving for 3 teams, it's just that most years the WIAC struggles to get 2 teams in (udeservedly so). Personally, I'm not sold on LAX being a lock if they lose to SP. If SP loses, I'd say the chances are better for 3 WIAC teams getting in as the Pointers would be a lock for a C.
Yes, I think the WIAC gets three teams in, this year:
Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 09:53:42 PM
UW-La Crosse defeats UW-Oshkosh and advances to the WIAC finals against UW-Stevens Point. I think this result removes any lingering doubt about whether the WIAC will get three teams in. (The answer is 'yes.') So there's two Pool C's by the wayside: one to Oshkosh, the other to Saturday's LaX/SP loser.
Oshkosh is now at .750 in-region and should end up with a QoWI of 10.041. They beat Stevens Point and Grinnell (regionally ranked teams.)
If LaX loses to SP tomorrow, they'll be at .708 and 9.917, with wins over Oshkosh (3x!) and St. Thomas.
I think they're both in. Oh, and so is Stevens Point. ;)
Compare them to Guilford, who finishes the season with .833 in-region win percentage (admittedly better than the WIACs) and a QoWI of something in the 9.6-9.7 range:
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 09:32:42 PM
All right, bubble watchers. Guilford was defeated by Bridgewater (South Region 7-15). We need Bridgewater to lose in the next round (and bring their South Region record to 7-16 .304) to keep the Guilford defeat worth "1" QOWI point!
I calculate the new Guilford QOWI as 231 points divided 24 games = 9.625.
This is all starting to sound equal in stupidity with the football BCS process: "well if Ball State beats Marshall, then Michigan could over-take USC with the bump to strength of schedule, since Michigan beat Ball State 6 weeks ago....."
::)
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 23, 2007, 08:33:41 AM
scotsbrod - it looks like there is something amiss in your QOWI for Hope. According to the QOWI posted by Pat yesterday, Hope should be at 9.667. I'm assuming this is due to Carthage's loss to Wheaton, which put them under .667 in region for the year.
I get Hope at
10.0........180 pts/ 18 games. Someone check my math and see if you can see an error because I sure as heck don't.
Carthage (13-8, .619) @ loss =
5 pts
Wheaton (13-7, .650) @ loss =
5Adrian (10-7, .588) @ win, home win =
13, 12Albion (10-9, .526) @ win, home win =
13, 12Alma (2-14, .125) @ win, home win, home win =
8, 9, 8Calvin (12-6, .667) @ win, @ win, home loss =
15, 15, 6Kzoo (5-18, .278) @ win, home win =
9, 8Olivet (4-16, .200) @ win, home win =
9, 8Tri-State (11-6, .647) @ win, home win =
13, 12Total points
180/ 18 games =10.00
I just did the calculation myself (prior to even seeing your post) and I also got 10.00
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2007, 11:23:17 AM
In comparing our numbers with some we received from the horse's mouth, we found they were not giving the highest tier of points for games against .666666 teams so we adjusted a few days ago.
That reduces this line:
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:01:25 PM
Calvin (12-6, .667) @ win, @ win, home loss = 15, 15, 6
to 13, 13, 4
and the total to 174/18=9.6666666666666666666666666(...)
(I would say 9.667, but clearly they don't round figures in Indiana anymore.) ::)
But 10.00 is correct right, since the QOWI chart says .667 and above
correct ???
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:26:05 PM
But 10.00 is correct right, since the QOWI chart says .667 and above
correct ???
Sac, on the QoWI board Pat just posted that the NCAA considers a 12-6 record as below .667 and therefore the Calvin games for Hope are currently at 13, not 15. Hence, its 176/18 = 9.7777. Of course that could change tonight, then again tomorrow!
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:26:05 PM
But 10.00 is correct right, since the QOWI chart says .667 and above
correct ???
sac - you know had bad things always come in threes?
1. NCAA - We can't read a map or understand ferrys not running in winter
2. NCAA - Oops, we can't count so we're taking away 1 pool C
3. NCAA - .667 is not a round-up of .6666(...), even though every person on the planet understands 2/3 to be .667
Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 01:43:55 AM
This thought just got me out of bed... :P
A non-trivial aspect of ONU's loss to Otterbein tonight is that they will surely now not be among the six "ranked" teams in the final Super-Secret GL ranking. That improves Wooster and Wittenberg in "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" (by one game each,) and this is one of the five primary selection/ranking criterion. Furthermore, it significantly hurts JCU and Capital in the same criterion, as both teams swept the PBs.
Good night again. :D
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:45:43 AM
LOL, that's awesome that you came back to post that. :)
No! That's not awesome! That is the sign of a sick mind with obsessive-compulsive disorder who loves his D3Hoops.com better than taking Prozac!
Trust me! I know! (I have seen the hourly distribution pattern of my own posts!) :D :D :D
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2007, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: andersdy on February 22, 2007, 09:32:25 PM
Would that difference in QOWI from letting Adrian win and lose to Calvin have more of an effect than the obvious addition of an in-region loss, however? QOWI is weighed against the regional record still, correct?
The in-region loss would definately balance it out............but the fact that losing helps this supposedly important number in the selection, seeding and pairings considerations is just absolutely looney!
Actually, I interpret that statistical phenomenon to suggest that we should give more respective the MIAA as a conference and less deferential homage to Hope! ;) :D
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 23, 2007, 01:33:20 PM
3. NCAA - .667 is not a round-up of .6666(...), even though every person on the planet understands 2/3 to be .667
How silly of me to round up a repeating remainder. ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 23, 2007, 01:33:10 PM
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:26:05 PM
But 10.00 is correct right, since the QOWI chart says .667 and above
correct ???
Sac, on the QoWI board Pat just posted that the NCAA considers a 12-6 record as below .667 and therefore the Calvin games for Hope are currently at 13, not 15. Hence, its 176/18 = 9.7777. Of course that could change tonight, then again tomorrow!
Actually it's 175/18 (the loss to Calvin goes down to 5 points). So, following the example set by the NCAA, that would be 9.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666... and so on
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 23, 2007, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 23, 2007, 01:33:10 PM
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:26:05 PM
But 10.00 is correct right, since the QOWI chart says .667 and above
correct ???
Sac, on the QoWI board Pat just posted that the NCAA considers a 12-6 record as below .667 and therefore the Calvin games for Hope are currently at 13, not 15. Hence, its 176/18 = 9.7777. Of course that could change tonight, then again tomorrow!
Actually it's 175/18 (the loss to Calvin goes down to 5 points). So, following the example set by the NCAA, that would be 9.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666... and so on
Argh! One of these days I really hope I figure out the QoWI with 100% certainty ??? Thanks for catching my miss.
Although all these deductions coupled with some upsets in the tourneys already makes me think more and more that Hope needs to win with MIAA because I believe a Pool C is far from assured.
4 points, it was at home
so its 174/18 = 9.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666....and so on.
and so on.
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 01:46:32 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 23, 2007, 01:33:20 PM
3. NCAA - .667 is not a round-up of .6666(...), even though every person on the planet understands 2/3 to be .667
How silly of me to round up a repeating remainder. ::) ::) ::)
The bureaucracy at the NCAA has reached a new low (high?). I wonder who the guy is "in charge of digits to the right of the decimal point."?
Quite a prestigious position, I would say.
Perhaps this will be the topic on this week's podcast:
Mondays with Myles
Dr. Brand discusses a current topic each week in this podcast.
I'm not kidding! The link to "Mondays with Myles" can be found at
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room/media_kit/president/resources.html
TigerFan_1973
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2007, 02:02:35 PM
4 points, it was at home
so its 174/18 = 9.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666....and so on.
and so on.
Right - a typo on my behalf, I'm so ashamed :-[ I feel guilty :'( I think this may lower my place in this world to equal that of <gulp> the NCAA
These posts clearly need to go here too...
Quote from: diehardfan on February 23, 2007, 02:11:40 PM
Personally, I'm just trying to figure out what your record would have to be to make your regional record actually exactly .667. Is it even possible? ??? I'm pretty sure it's not, at least within the confines of the sum of all the game any school plays in all sports over the course of a year!? :D
The way they're interpreting this rule is clearly not the way that it was intended. Anyone who has taken a basic science or math course knows that there are not an adequate number of significant figures in the math problem to make .666666 possible. 180(three sig figs)/18(two sig figs) = 10 (two sig figs), and .67. They can add one sig fig if they really want and make it an approximation, but adding four sig figs is absurd to an infinite degree. ::)
The Pool B-C thing could be counted as an honest clerical error. The Hope-Carthage thing an intelligent decision to stay within the scope of the law as it is this year because it's dangerous to jump in the grey area. This one makes me annoyed. >:(
Quote from: diehardfan on February 23, 2007, 02:34:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2007, 02:16:12 PM
To get .667, a team must have a record of 667 wins and 333 losses, and nothing less! :-\
Exactly! Wheaton plays in quite a few sports, but unless you count all the games in tennis separately or something, I'm pretty sure with all our mens and womens sports we wouldn't come even close to 667 games. The AT part of this rule is there for a reason, and it's there to demonstrate that anyone who has won at least 2/3rds of their games should be in the top bracket. The fact that any mathematician would be ashamed to read their statement only supplements how obvious it is that they are not following the intent of the rule.
After the clerical error, I made a joke that the NCAA person who make the notations probably went to a DI school. Now I'm sure of it. This is clearly a product of large class sizes and lack of personal attention. Someone clearly slipped through the cracks. :D
Seriously though, the people who make and interpret rules are not scientists. I get this ALL the time in my work with government standards and the EPA. That's somewhat understandable, but the fact remains that numbers and formulas and calculations need to be done in accordance with internationally accepted scientific principles!!! >:( >:( >:( I think that schools like Hope have a very legitimate, scientifically based complaint to take up with the NCAA administration.I really hope they make every effort to do that before the end of the season and get this cleared up so that the process maintains some integrity.
And I think it behooves all of us to go ahead and make the call to our schools and let them become aware that this kind of nonsense is going on so that they can make the appropriate calls. Doesn't someone from the Hope administration have the head honcho of all of the NCAA's card after his visit or something? ???
And I mean it, people need to start making calls right now. A lot of them.
and didn't we say that the NCAA's selection process of determing their champ is more constructive than football
All this talk is ridiculous
While it may (and no doubt will) be crucial to some teams by Sunday, it is actually irrelevant in terms of Hope/Calvin, since the final in-region winning % will be what matters. Calvin will finish at 12-7, 13-7, or 14-6, none of which need worry about the NCAA's inability to round numbers. It is absurd, annoying, laughable, etc., but not relevant.
However, some teams will finish at 12-6, 14-7, 16-8, whatever. Their opponents apparently will get shafted!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2007, 03:05:46 PM
While it may (and no doubt will) be crucial to some teams by Sunday, it is actually irrelevant in terms of Hope/Calvin, since the final in-region winning % will be what matters. Calvin will finish at 12-7, 13-7, or 14-6, none of which need worry about the NCAA's inability to round numbers. It is absurd, annoying, laughable, etc., but not relevant.
However, some teams will finish at 12-6, 14-7, 16-8, whatever. Their opponents apparently will get shafted!
Definitely, I think all the regular Hope posters are aware of the fact that by Sunday morning the .667 distinction won't matter to Hope or Calvin. It just happens that this is a board dominated by Hope and Calvin posters so we have the most information on these schools and the situation today is such that it provides ample points of discussion and analysis. The sad reality though is that many other schools will be affect by this arcane interpretation. Combined with the many other NCAA blunders (Pool C) and faulty logic (Hope-Carthage is less than 200 miles) this is just another example of NCAA incompetence or at least lack of concern for D3.
Based on the results this evening it is apparent the only thing more important than QoWI is getting a W. Right? :)
Goodbye Witt - it's been real. Artie's suits will spend a long off-season in the closet.
Hi Board:
Took in the OAC semifinals tonight. Still trying to get around to posting up recaps/impressions over on the OAC board, but for this board I have some comments on what might happen after tomorrow's OAC final between Capital and John Carroll. My question to myself: Can both teams make the NCAA regardless of tomorrow's outcome?
Cap as a Pool C: Capital's regional winning percentage after losing tomorrow night would be, well, crappy. 18-9, .666ish (I've learned that this last digit is variable). ::) .666 or .667 does not equal a Pool C, probably regardless of whether their QoWI can actually end up reasonable. 8 in-region losses is just too many.
But on the other hand, JCU will have 7 such losses if they lose and become a Pool C tomorrow: 18-7, .720, with a pretty darn good QoWI. I think even that is below the Pool C win % threshold from last year. The fact that they've been ranked might help, in so far as we know that their name is under serious discussion. The GL is falling apart in terms of Pool Cs; I'm not sure how many we'll really end up getting.
I've become a fan of the OAC this year, with my move to the Columbus area, and I think it would be decidedly sad if only the AQ made it from the league. I hope that doesn't happen.
Three of the teams I saw tonight- B-W, JCU, and Capital, could all give Wittenberg, Wooster and (probably-I haven't seen them) Hope a serious basketball contest. I'm not sure that these OAC teams all deserve slots in the top 25, but I think all three of them could beat Wittenberg, who spent most of the year in the top 10. This year, the "hyped" OAC team (ONU) didn't deliver, and I don't think anyone nationally has been able to quite reverse the image of ONU as the unquestioned "best team in Ohio" after their impressive string of December wins during Jan/Feb when ONU failed to even be the fourth best team in their conference.
I think it would be a shame to only get one OAC team- and I hope that their representative(s) to the NCAA tourney win two or three games each to show the country how well they can play.
Witt's loss probably ensures that Hope will appear in the final Great Lakes Rankings if they lose tommorrow. This will go a long way to be being considered for a C. They should at least be in the discussion frequently. Of course we'll never see this ranking.
An OWU win would definately shut the door on Witt if it isn't already......don't know haven't really looked but generally losses in anything but the Conf. Finals are not looked upon well unless your ultra elite which Witt was not.
Hard to believe but the #5 and #6 ranked teams may be a difficult search for the GL reps if things go as planned. Hope-W, Woo-W, JCU-W
Witt may get a reprieve and get #6............however, the GL may only get 5 teams and one would be Lake Erie. :-\ :-X
Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2007, 11:30:02 AM
Yes, I think the WIAC gets three teams in, this year:
Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 09:53:42 PM
UW-La Crosse defeats UW-Oshkosh and advances to the WIAC finals against UW-Stevens Point. I think this result removes any lingering doubt about whether the WIAC will get three teams in. (The answer is 'yes.') So there's two Pool C's by the wayside: one to Oshkosh, the other to Saturday's LaX/SP loser.
Oshkosh is now at .750 in-region and should end up with a QoWI of 10.041. They beat Stevens Point and Grinnell (regionally ranked teams.)
If LaX loses to SP tomorrow, they'll be at .708 and 9.917, with wins over Oshkosh (3x!) and St. Thomas.
I think they're both in. Oh, and so is Stevens Point. ;)
I guess I should retract this before I end up looking stupid(er). I gather that the WIAC teams' QoWIs were artifically inflated by the presence of a win by UW-Eau Claire's women's team appearing on the men's schedule, or something like that. The "real" QoWIs are somewhat lower, pushing La Crosse, and possibly Oshkosh as well, onto the bubble.
I have given up trying to calculate QoWI and prognosticate Pool C bids; I'll just wait for the announcement tomorrow. :-X
So if Wooster, Hope, JCU and Lake Eire all win their tournaments and Westminster is a pool B, either Wittenberg of Capital should be at the top of the list for the Great Lakes region. Does anyone expect the Selection committee to not pick at least 1 GL team from the at large group of 18? In other words, I don't think those two teams are necessarily out yet.
Quote from: goscots on February 24, 2007, 01:07:02 PM
So if Wooster, Hope, JCU and Lake Eire all win their tournaments and Westminster is a pool B, either Wittenberg of Capital should be at the top of the list for the Great Lakes region. Does anyone expect the Selection committee to not pick at least 1 GL team from the at large group of 18? In other words, I don't think those two teams are necessarily out yet.
I agree...........except that they don't chose just to chose a team from a region, they stack them up vs all other regions. It would seem to me Witt and either JCU or Cap loser would squeeze in with one of the last few Pool C's, but I'm entirely not sure about that.
I think I remember a year with only 4 Great Lakes teams not to long ago.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2007, 03:05:46 PM
While it may (and no doubt will) be crucial to some teams by Sunday, it is actually irrelevant in terms of Hope/Calvin, since the final in-region winning % will be what matters. Calvin will finish at 12-7, 13-7, or 14-6, none of which need worry about the NCAA's inability to round numbers. It is absurd, annoying, laughable, etc., but not relevant.
However, some teams will finish at 12-6, 14-7, 16-8, whatever. Their opponents apparently will get shafted!
It was never in reference to Hope-Calvin from me, it was in reference to Hope-Wheaton, as Scott and I figured out that if Wheaton won the CCIW tourney, Hope would get two more QOWI points. That's now obviously moot. I'm sure it affects MANY other teams, however.
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 24, 2007, 12:05:21 AMBut on the other hand, JCU will have 7 such losses if they lose and become a Pool C tomorrow: 18-7, .720, with a pretty darn good QoWI. I think even that is below the Pool C win % threshold from last year.
No, last year's Pool C RW% threshold was lower than that. It was Illinois Wesleyan's .714 (15-6).
A Pool C bid was saved this afternoon when Lake Erie hit a 3 with 4.7 seconds left to beat Penn St. Behrend 59-58 and claim the AMCC's automatic bid. Good news for Hope. I'd say it was also good news for Witt but I think Witt was done before that game was over anyways.
Great Lakes Automatic NCAA Bids:
NCAC - Wooster
OAC - Capital
MIAA - Calvin
AMCC - Lake Erie
Looking for Pool C slots:
Hope
John Carroll
Wittenberg (remote possibility)
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2007, 10:19:12 PMWittenberg (remote possibility)
No, it isn't. Wittenberg's season is over.
Way too many teams ahead of them in the Pool C line.
It is "remote" until the NCAA bracket is actually posted! ;D :) :P
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2007, 10:26:24 PM
It is "remote" until the NCAA bracket is actually posted! ;D :) :P
If you want to look at it that way, Oberlin has a "remote" chance as well. :D
From Pat's Post on the Pool C Board. Pool A winners are in bold. The likely Pool B is in italics.
First column is national QoWI rank. I struck through those who are dead on arrival tomorrow.
QoWI Rankings Through Saturday:
Overall Points In-reg rk Team Region Win% Overall
4 10.818 1 Lake Erie 0.955 (21-1) 25-2 Pool A
27 10.091 2 Wooster 0.909 (20-2) 25-3 Pool A
31 10.040 3 John Carroll 0.720 (18-7) 19-9
36 9.900 4 Hope 0.800 (16-4) 23-4
52 9.619 5 Ohio Northern 0.667 (14-7) 19-7 (Win % too low)
56 9.481 6 Capital 0.704 (19-8) 19-8 Pool A
60 9.450 7 Westminster (Pa.) 0.800 (16-4) 18-8 Likely Pool B
62 9.364 8 Wittenberg 0.773 (17-5) 22-5 (QoWI too low)
69 9.200 9 Penn State-Behrend 0.720 (18-7) 19-7
75 9.100 10 Calvin 0.700 (14-6) 18-9 Pool A
77 9.091 11 Baldwin-Wallace 0.682 (15-7) 18-9
83 9.000 12 Otterbein 0.600 (15-10) 16-11
96 8.857 13 Carnegie Mellon 0.524 (11-10) 12-12
107 8.708 14 Ohio Wesleyan 0.625 (15-9) 18-10
126 8.455 15 Bethany 0.682 (15-7) 19-8
scotsbrod - good post.
I was also counting all the teams above Hope on the QoWI list that have already clinched automatic Pool A bids and 3 teams that are virtual Pool B locks (Aurora, Lincoln, Maryville) and I got to a total of 20 teams already in.
Essentially, that means Hope is sitting at the #16 slot on the QoWI list in contention for the remaining 18 Pool C bids.
IMO, both Hope and John Carroll will get a NCAA bid.
That would mean 7 teams (Lake Erie, Wooster, Capital, Calvin, Hope, JCU, Westminster) get in from the Great Lakes assuming that Westminster gets the last Pool B bid.
Thanks wooscotsfan. I only know enough to do the Great Lakes Pool As and wouldn't be able to tackle the whole national list very well. I count 27 men's Pool As as already clinched in the Daily Dose. Assuming this means 10 more Pool As are up tomorrow, Hope and JCU still need one more day of basketball to break in their favor, I imagine.
Looking at them, though, I too feel like they both have good chances. No one in the GL is going to move ahead of them in the regional rankings, and with Lake Erie and Wooster winning Pool A bids, either JCU or Hope will be "on the table" from the very beginning of Pool C selection. Obviously, the amount of time spent on the table isn't itself helpful at all to either team, but I can't imagine it hurts to constantly have your name under discussion.
I think Wittenberg has proven this season that the NCAC is a trap you really can't schedule your way out of. The Tigers played 27 games this season, 22 of them in-region. Of those 22 regional games, 18 were NCAC contests. The other four were against Capital, Otterbein, Ohio Northern, and Transylvania. That's fairly aggressive scheduling, and they won three of those games. They went 14-4 against NCAC competition, with all 4 losses being at the hands of teams with >.500 regional records.
So what did in the Tigers? They played eight games against NCAC opponents in the bottom (<.333) band, five of them at home. They won them all, but still accumulated just 67 QoWI points from those games, an average of 8.375. To overcome that handicap and reach a QoWI of 10.000, the Tigers would have to have averaged nearly 11 QoWI points per game in the the other 14 games. To accumulate such a total, you really can't afford any slip-ups, like Witt's losses to Allegheny and OWU. Even if they had beaten Allegheny, their QoWI would be just 9.545, as that win would have pushed 'Gheny down below .500. In order to feel confident of a Pool C bid, Witt would have had to convert two of those four losses to wins--in other words, to go 19-3 in-region. That's tough for anyone, even a storied program like Witt. In the Great Lakes, only Lake Erie (21-1) and Wooster (20-2) did that well.
They could, I suppose, have played more regional games, but there's not a lot to be gained. They played Cedarville, which is a rivalry game, and they participated in Haverford's season-opening tournament, where they had no real control over scheduling. That just leaves their own holiday tournament, where they faced York (NY) and IU-Southeast. Replace those two with quality regional opponents and their QoWI improves, but only if they win those games.
I say that Wittenburg should look to pick up wins against the "cream" of the USAC or the South Region now that the rules have broadened.
Mississippi College (ASC) 22 1 .957 24 2 .923
Maryville (Tenn.) (GSAC) 21 3 .875 21 6 .778
Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) 22 4 .846 23 4 .852
Guilford (ODAC) 20 4 .833 21 4 .840
DePauw (SCAC) 19 4 .826 22 5 .815
Averett (USAC) 18 4 .818 20 6 .769
Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC) 22 5 .815 22 5 .815
Centre (SCAC) 16 4 .800 22 4 .846
McMurry (ASC) 19 5 .792 20 7 .741
Greensboro (USAC) 17 6 .739 20 7 .741
Millsaps (SCAC) 15 6 .714 18 9 .667
Texas-Dallas (ASC) 16 8 .667 18 8 .692
Roanoke (ODAC) 14 8 .636 17 10 .630
LaGrange (GSAC) 11 7 .611 18 9 .667
LeTourneau (ASC) 14 9 .609 15 10 .600
Trinity (Texas) (SCAC) 14 9 .609 16 11 .593
Hardin-Simmons (ASC) 16 11 .593 16 11 .593
Hampden-Sydney (ODAC) 14 10 .583 17 10 .630
Hendrix (SCAC) 10 9 .526 15 10 .600
Oglethorpe (SCAC) 13 12 .520 14 12 .538
Emory and Henry (ODAC) 11 11 .500 14 11 .560
Christopher Newport (USAC) 10 10 .500 15 11 .577
The Texas schools don't count, but can you pick up a 13- or a 15-point (road or neutral site) win against these schools?
I'm going to make this post just so that I can give your excellent analysis of what sunk the Tigers the karma point it deserves, David!
I looked at this a bit when I was busy calculating GL region QoWIs earlier this week. The NCAC has, as you noted, 4 teams below .333%. The OAC has only 1 bottom feeder, then 3 teams between .333-.500%. That means that any top OAC teams garners 12 extra QoWI points (3 teams x 2 pts x 2 games) against the bottom four teams in their conference compared to what Woo-Witt can gain against the NCAC bottom four.
Ralph
For those ridiculous in-region matchups to happen, you may donate money to the Wittenberg travel fund at Witt.edu
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2007, 12:55:10 AM
I say that Wittenburg should look to pick up wins against the "cream" of the USAC or the South Region now that the rules have broadened.
Ralph - interesting concept but there are two practical problems with it.
1. Travel Costs, as Sac noted, would prevent most of these opponents
2. Scheduling is Typically 12 months in Advance -- so, you have
no assurance that an opponent will be worth 13 or 15 QoWI points when you actually get around to playing them.
I remember Wooster going out to Illinois (long bus trip) a few years ago to play a CCIW team, Elmhurst. Wooster
thought they were scheduling a tough opponent but when the game was actually played, Elmhurst had a losing record at that point and they finished in the bottom half of the CCIW that year. BTW, Wooster won that road game. :)
Fortunately, this inferior QoWI methodology will disappear in the near future! ;D
I don't know anything about funding at Wittenberg, but I'd guess that they have whatever money they need (within reason.) Where I think the problem comes in is with the actual scheduling.
It doesn't benefit the Tigers to excise any of those OAC games or local good opponent like Transy, especially since they recruit in Columbus and Lexington. They're not going to cut the Cedarville game, either. So if they are going to take on good in-region South teams, it'd be in one of three possible scenarios:
1) Invite them to play in the Zimmerman tournament in late Dec. (I'd say "send them a Zimmerman telegram," but probably nobody would get the reference ;))
2) Try to find a tournament somewhere else with two in-region opponents
3) Make a snowbird trip
Here's the problems with these three scenarios, in case they aren't obvious:
1) Good luck trying to convince good Southern teams to come to Ohio for the New Year and play in two games they could easily lose that will count against their regional record.
2) Good luck locating such a tournament--who's going to invite one or two top-shelf regional opponents and Wittenberg to their tournament? Plus Witt has no control over this scheduling.
3) The portion of the South Region that is in-region for Witt is the Deep South. There's no D3 teams in Florida, and no good ones in Georgia. That means you're going to Jackson, MS to play MC and Millsaps, or to Virginia to play two ODAC teams. These are not what I'd call "snowbird" trips; they don't recruit these areas, and they're not terribly appealing places to go in December. Furthermore, there's no margin for error: you have to be able to schedule the exact teams you want, from a pretty small pool, and they pray that they have good seasons.
Anyway, this whole discussion presupposes that Witt scheduled themselves into this mess and can schedule their way out, which is contrary to my initial point. The reason they are staying home this March isn't because they didn't schedule properly, it's because they exceeded their tiny margin for error on the court. As Lake Erie capably proved this year, no matter how weak your schedule is, if you win all your games you're in like Flynn. So maybe what Witt should do is replace their OAC opponents with good NAIA or non-regional D3 teams to make them as tough as possible going into the NCAC season, and then split with Wooster and run the rest of the table. That, more or less, was Wooster's recipe for success this year.
Wooster has, of course, the same problem with the NCAC schedule, and has a slightly more difficult pre-conference problem, since they host two tournaments, not one. Wooster has tried every sort of schedule variety, including snowbird trips, NAIA teams, OAC teams, in-region cupcakes, and so on. And Wooster has qualified for the NCAA tournament five years in a row and 15 of the past 17 years, five of those as an at-large (including the past two years.) The difference, such as it is, is that Wooster tends to get the job done against their NCAC foes; they are less prone to the slip-up than their Springfield counterparts. It's not that the Scots schedule better, it's that they almost never lose to the "Dorksen Eight" teams.
Using the projeced field by D3Hoops and the regional rankings by Scotsbrod above, I would guess the pairings to be:
1 Lake Erie
bye
@ Capital, winner to Lake Eire
5 Calvin
6 Capital
@ Wooster
2 Wooster
7 Westminster (Pa.)
3 Hope
4 Centre
Your original point: I agree the Allegheny loss killed Wittenberg much more than the loss to OWU. Beat 'gheny and lose to OWU, Witts probably much more in the 'C' picture, but still not in great shape.
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2007, 12:48:30 PM
Your original point: I agree the Allegheny loss killed Wittenberg much more than the loss to OWU. Beat 'gheny and lose to OWU, Witts probably much more in the 'C' picture, but still not in great shape.
I didn't say that the Allegheny loss killed Wittenberg, so you're not agreeing with me. What I did say was:
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2007, 12:47:03 AMTo accumulate such a total, you really can't afford any slip-ups, like Witt's losses to Allegheny and OWU. Even if they had beaten Allegheny, their QoWI would be just 9.545, as that win would have pushed 'Gheny down below .500. In order to feel confident of a Pool C bid, Witt would have had to convert two of those four losses to wins--in other words, to go 19-3 in-region.
All other things being equal, if Witt beats Allegheny, they still sit at home next week. If they had beaten OWU this weekend, or back in January, they'd be in better shape, with a QoWI of 9.727, but still firmly on the bubble. To get off the bubble and into the tournament, they'd needed to have won two of these three games...or have swept Wooster.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2007, 12:34:15 PM
The difference, such as it is, is that Wooster tends to get the job done against their NCAC foes; they are less prone to the slip-up than their Springfield counterparts. It's not that the Scots schedule better, it's that they almost never lose to the "Dorksen Eight" teams.
"Dorksen Eight" -- hilarious! Would that be a "dork" or a certain newspaper writer that assembled that list? :) :P
David - you are quite right that Wooster rarely slips up against the rest of the NCAC. Since the 2001-2002 season, Wooster has only two losses to any NCAC team other than Wittenberg (Wabash in 2001-2002 and OWU last season).
There's trouble in River City for any "C" since Amherst and WPI lost.
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 25, 2007, 01:16:30 PM
David - you are quite right that Wooster rarely slips up against the rest of the NCAC. Since the 2001-2002 season, Wooster has only two losses to any NCAC team other than Wittenberg (Wabash in 2001-2002 and OWU last season).
wooscotsfan,
You can actually go back even farther than that. You have to go all the way back to the '96-'97 season to find a season where Wooster lost multiple games to NCAC foes not named Witt! After that season, Wooster didn't lose to anyone other than Witt in the regular season until Wabash got them in '02. So they have actually lost only 2 conference games to NCAC teams not named Witt since the '97-'98 season! :o Note, they did lose to Allegheny in the conference finals in 1998 but still made the tournament at large.
Quote from: goscots on February 25, 2007, 12:46:56 PM
Using the projeced field by D3Hoops and the regional rankings by Scotsbrod above, I would guess the pairings to be:
1 Lake Erie
bye
@ Capital, winner to Lake Eire
5 Calvin
6 Capital
@ Wooster
2 Wooster
7 Westminster (Pa.)
3 Hope
4 Centre
Personally, I'm hoping Wooster gets a rematch with last year's first round opponent, Transy. Only this time it will be in Timken! I'd like to see Westminster take out LEC in a 1st round matchup as well!!! 8) ;D
Wooster lost to Transy in the second round last year. In the first round the Scots beat Randolph-Macon.
First round, second round, I still want Trany!!!
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 25, 2007, 04:11:23 PM
First round, second round, I still want Trany!!!
Gotta be a bit carefull with how you phrase that......ya know. ;)
Good news for Hope and John Carroll as John Hopkins held on to beat Haverford in the Centential Conference tourney. Centre also has a 12 point half time lead while Mississippi College has a 61-53 lead with about 4 minutes left.
transy is not as strong as a team this year-i think if wooster were to get them at home they wouldn't have much trouble at all with them
I just want Transy strictly on a revenge basis because they knocked Wooster out of the tournament last year and it would be nice if the Scots could return the favor to the Pios!!! Really, the biggest thing I want is for Wooster to be hosting as long as they possibly can. I'm banking on them being home this coming weekend, and if they can get through that game or games, I'm hoping they get the sectional as well, regardless of who they play.
Speaking of a possible matchup with Westminster, this season was the 1st time since the 2000-2001 season that this series wasn't renewed for a regular season matchup. I'm not sure what was behind this series not being renewed, but seeing as how my alma mater has gone 0-6 vs. Wooster in that span, I would guess they had a bit of a say in not renewing things with the Scots. Wouldn't it be ironic that they still got to face off anyways in the post-season?
Quote from: goscots on February 25, 2007, 12:46:56 PM
Using the projeced field by D3Hoops and the regional rankings by Scotsbrod above, I would guess the pairings to be:
1 Lake Erie
bye
@ Capital, winner to Lake Eire
5 Calvin
6 Capital
@ Wooster
2 Wooster
7 Westminster (Pa.)
3 Hope
4 Centre
I thought that in the GL bracket it's pretty rare to get byes because none of the teams tend to be that geographically challenged. Lake Erie could draw someone to the east/mid-atlantic? For that matter, so could Woo?
Centre, DePauw, Transylvania and even Maryville are in a reasonable distance to Ohio. Not so much Centre and Maryville....but within reason.
We shouldn't forget these teams, 1 or 2 might end up playing a GL team.
Last year the tournament seemed to make its best effort at moving teams around.........sending North Central to Minnesota, and UW-LaCrosse to Michigan even though each was much closer to the others location.
I still like one of the MIAA's to go to Chicago with Aurora, Chicago and Carroll
That leaves an odd set of GL teams which opens up a bye for Wooster or Lake Erie (god forbid)..........and brings in the possibility of seeing a DePauw, Transylvania, Centre in our Region, to go with JCU and Capital
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2007, 11:55:06 PM
Last year the tournament seemed to make its best effort at moving teams around.........sending North Central to Minnesota, and UW-LaCrosse to Michigan even though each was much closer to the others location.
That's when they discovered the ferry....:D
I can't believe I just posted that...:P
Well maybe I'm hoping Calvin and Hope get separated, they could still end up in the same bracket. It would however be a big mistake to pair them up away from Grand Rapids and Holland.
Hope v Calvin in Columbus anyone? :-\
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2007, 12:08:25 AM
Hope v Calvin in Columbus anyone? :-\
Hey, I'd go. ;D
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2007, 12:08:25 AM
Well maybe I'm hoping Calvin and Hope get separated, they could still end up in the same bracket. It would however be a big mistake to pair them up away from Grand Rapids and Holland.
Hope v Calvin in Columbus anyone? :-\
There's no possible way that Calvin or Hope will host any games are there?
Small in my opinion.
As I stated earlier, in odd years the women's programs have priority when it comes to hosting sites..........Calvin is in very good position on the women's side, and if they don't Hope would probably have at least a decent shot. Although I'm sure that would be controversial.
If the women host, Calvin men's have no shot and thier overall record would make it difficult to justify hosting even if they could.
Hope's men have a slight chance but their regional ranking all year has suggested they aren't ranked high enough to host, but if Calvin's women host that likely leaves DeVos available and it might be hard to keep Hope from getting a set of games in that building.
I'm saying no, and in a few short hours we'll know. :)
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2007, 12:08:25 AM
Well maybe I'm hoping Calvin and Hope get separated, they could still end up in the same bracket. It would however be a big mistake to pair them up away from Grand Rapids and Holland.
Hope v Calvin in Columbus anyone? :-\
Or how about Aurora??? ???
Any early thoughts on how many GL teams get in this year?
Anyone interested in doing a fan poll for the GL region? I was thinking we could rank the top 10.
shure go for it would be great sac
Sac, sounds like a good idea to me.
Sounds like fun to me. I'm game.
I would give it a try.
How about we try a top 10, I'll take ballots untill Tuesday evening, but only count games through Sunday. A personal message is probably best, if you can't PM yet use email.
10 points for a 1st place vote
9 for second
so on........
We'll see what kind of participation we get. Please remember the AMCC is in the Great Lakes Region. ;)
Will this week be the first one for submissions? First ballot by this Tuesday evening?
Oops, yeah lets do one this week.
Quote from: sac on January 06, 2008, 04:58:32 PM
Oops, yeah lets do one this week.
Good plan - you can warm up for the national PP! ;D
Although I have lived in Michigan for many more years than Illinois, I'm still a CCIW guy at heart; I MAY vote here, but whether or not I do, I will certainly be watching to check my impressions with the 'local' experts. (The Northeast is also starting a regional top 10 this year. I wish all the regions would; it's fun, and a great source for identifying the not-yet-on-the-radar teams.)
Assuming sac, FlyingDutchFan, and smedindy all return again this year, the GL is NOT among the underrepresented regions in the national PP, but we can always make room for one more (and we have no one from Ohio, despite my repeated twisting of David Collinge's arm ;D). If you follow the national scene, come visit and perhaps join us on the Multi-Region Topics board.
Of course anyone's welcome to vote, so feel free Mr Y. We have no Great Lakes Region Fan Only requirements here. ;)
Quote from: sac on January 06, 2008, 04:38:44 PM
We'll see what kind of participation we get. Please remember the AMCC is in the Great Lakes Region. ;)
Half of the AMCC is GL, half isn't. But all of the PrexyAC is GL, and so are Carnegie Mellon and Case Western Reserve. And, of course, so are the NCAC, OAC, and MIAA. And, uhm, Finlandia too. http://www.d3hoops.com/region/greatlakes/mens
Ah, yes, Finlandia. IF I vote, I may be forced to include the Lions just as a 'protest vote' (much like the Democratic primary in Michigan ;)). ;D There are at least 20 teams closer in the West Region (and probably over 30 that are more reasonable in the winter) - my obsession is to get Finlandia moved to the West where they obviously belong [disclosure: I have no ties to Finlandia, and my obsession will clearly have no effect :)].
And David (one last try ;)), you are more than welcome in the PP.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 06, 2008, 06:38:12 PM
Assuming sac, FlyingDutchFan, and smedindy all return again this year, the GL is NOT among the underrepresented regions in the national PP, but we can always make room for one more (and we have no one from Ohio, despite my repeated twisting of David Collinge's arm ;D). If you follow the national scene, come visit and perhaps join us on the Multi-Region Topics board.
I try to follow the national scene, but I just don't have the time to try and sort out who I think are the top 25 teams in the country. I just tried to sort out my GL top 10 and that was hard enough. I made it through the top 4 easy enough, but as far as 5-10, I might as well have been pulling their names out of a hat. :P ;)
I'll PM my rankings to you later sac.
Deadlines tonight-ish, if anyone's intereted in voting.
First Great Lakes Region fan poll, brought to you by the number 6.
1. Wooster 10-2 (3)..............57
2. Hope 8-2 (3).....................55
3. Capital 9-2........................41
4. Carnegie-Mellon 8-2.........39
5. Heidelberg 9-2..................29
6. Ohio Wesleyan 6-4...........25
7. Wilmington 9-3.................16
8t. Albion 6-3........................12
8t. Wabash 8-4.....................12
8t. Wittenberg 7-5................12
Others receiving votes: PSU-Behrend 9, Calvin 8, Ohio Northern 5, Lake Erie 4, Case Western 3, Grove City 3
Milestone's: Wooster extends their record streak atop the GL poll at 1 week.
Consecutive Weeks: All 10 teams appear in the poll for a record 1 consecutive week
Debutants: All 10 teams appear in poll for the first time in their school's history, congratulations to these fine programs. :P
Key regional matchups this week between ranked teams
Wednesday Jan. 9
#8t Albion at #2 Hope
Saturday Jan. 12
#1 Wooster at #8t Wabash
Thanks to those who submitted votes, I can edit if anyone wants to throw thier 2 cents in before tommorrow.
Quote from: sac on January 08, 2008, 11:05:07 PM
Milestone's: Wooster extends their record streak atop the GL poll at 1 week.
Wooster again insists on holding every poll record possible...
Sac, any breakdown on who/whose supporters submitted ballots? Also, too bad none of those top four teams will meet the remainder of the regular season, as they are all different conferences. (CMU's victory over Cap is the only head to head among them, I think.)
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 08, 2008, 11:19:22 PM
Sac, any breakdown on who/whose supporters submitted ballots? Also, too bad none of those top four teams will meet the remainder of the regular season, as they are all different conferences. (CMU's victory over Cap is the only head to head among them, I think.)
I think its 2 Hope, 4 Wooster.........not a very diverse group. ;)........and only 1 voter voted for his own team #1.
Quote from: sac on January 08, 2008, 11:05:07 PM
Milestone's: Wooster extends their record streak atop the GL poll at 1 week.
Consecutive Weeks: All 10 teams appear in the poll for a record 1 consecutive week
Debutants: All 10 teams appear in poll for the first time in their school's history, congratulations to these fine programs. :P
You'll be hearing from my lawyers in the morning. :D
My 2c: Capital is overrated.
Aw, c'mon David, don't hide behind a hired gun - sue him yourself! ;D
FWIW, I would have had Woo #1 and Hope #2, but I'm just not up to speed to go beyond that. Once I've boned up for the national PP (starting this weekend), I MAY have studied enough GL teams to join in next week. That way you can exoand your voter base to 2 Dutch, 4 Scots, and 1 Titan! (Where are the Knights? :P)
Quote from: sac on January 08, 2008, 11:05:07 PM
Saturday Jan. 12
#1 Wooster at #8t Wabash
Wooster eeks out a win at Wabash, 72-70. Incredibly tense game. Wooster's largest lead was 8-0 to start the game, then Wabash got it going. It was 34-33 Bash at half, then Wabash dominated the first ten minutes of the second half and opened up its largest lead of 11 (57-46 I think) at about the 11 minute mark after draining a couple three pointers (at that point, the LGs were an incredible 10-15 from 3).
Wooster chipped away until regaining the lead at the 3-4 minute mark, then it was tight till the end. Wabash had the ball down two with six seconds to go, but failed to get a shot off.
Wabash is only the second team to outrebound Wooster on the season (Lake Erie was the other), and they held Wooster to 2-10 shooting from behind the arc (I imagine that's a season low).
Cap wins a tight one at Ohio Northern 69-67....Bears were a miserable 9 of 19 from the foul line and were outrebounded 45 to 24....Capital now sits atop the OAC with no losses and will be in the driver's seat for now. ONU on the other hand remains inconsistent with too many turnovers and inability to get their big men to remain aggressive on the boards...Capital is a good basketball team with a great deal of experience.....but I personally think they're #16 ranking is giving them a little too much credit....If they continue to play like they did today, they are going to lose a few more games this year.
Posted a lot about this game in the OAC board, but here I'll say that I saw Heidelberg beat Otterbein tonight in a game that was not as close as the final score (82-72) would indicate.
Heidelberg essentially held around a 15 point lead from the 12 minute mark of the first half until the very end, when Otterbein picked up buckets in garbage time.
I'm very impressed with the 'Berg. They have a dynamic and dominating duo underneath in Andrew Lemmon and Brian Schmidt. Lemmon posted his sixth double double of the season with 17 pts. and an impressive 19 rebounds tonight, while Schmidt scored at will all night on his way to 24 points with 7 boards.
I think Heidelberg is probably the favorite when it squares off with Capital in Tiffin on Wednesday. A convincing win there should put them not only near the top of our informal poll, but should gain them serious voting support in the real Top 25.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 12, 2008, 10:53:49 PM
I think Heidelberg is probably the favorite when it squares off with Capital in Tiffin on Wednesday. A convincing win there should put them not only near the top of our informal poll, but should gain them serious voting support in the real Top 25.
I agree with this assessment bryan. Although, I think a 'Berg win, whether convincing or not, should suffice in gaining the Student Princes some recognition not only on the regional stage, but also on the national stage.
I had the 'Berg 5th in our 1st GL fan poll behind Wilmington because Wilmington had handed the 'Berg their only in region loss. But after watching Wilmington drop their midweek tilt to ONU and then blow a 9 point 2nd half lead to lose to lowly MUC??? Dare I say, maybe I had the Quakers a bit overrated? I don't see a change among my top 3 this week, but the 'Berg is definitely on my radar and a win over Cap this week would go a long way to get a lot of people to take notice of the Student Princes.
I'll try to do another fan poll this week if people are interested. Same deal, PM or email, lets make tommorrow night the deadline. Maybe later I'll do a 'how they fared' kind of thing.
Week 2 Great Lakes Poll
1. Wooster (4) 11-2..............66
2. Hope (3) 10-2...................64
3. Capital 11-2......................52
4. Carnegie Mellon 10-2.........49
5. Heidelberg 11-2.................44
6. Ohio Wesleyan 8-4............30
7t. Wabash 8-5.....................12
7t. Wittenberg 7-5.................12
9t. Calvin 7-5........................11
9t. PSU-Behrend 8-3...............11
Others receiving votes: Muskingum 8, Lake Erie 7, Case Western 4, Ohio Northern 4, Albion 3, Wilmington 1, Grove City 1
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#3 Capital @ #5 Heidelberg
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #7t Wabash
Saturday
#1 Wooster @ #7t Wittenberg
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2008, 09:55:35 PM
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#3 Capital @ #5 Heidelberg
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #7t Wabash
Saturday
#1 Wooster @ #7t Wittenberg
I would be surprised if all three of the higher "seeds" came away with road victories this week.
I received another vote earlier today, then was reminded that Tuesday was the deadline last week, sorry if I caught everyone off-gaurd. I just forgot. So Tuesday's the deadline from now on.
Week 2 Great Lakes Poll(Edited)
1. Wooster (4) 11-2..............75
2. Hope (4) 10-2...................74
3. Capital 11-2......................60
4. Carnegie Mellon 10-2.........55
5. Heidelberg 11-2.................51
6. Ohio Wesleyan 8-4............35
7t. Wabash 8-5.....................15
7t. Calvin 7-5........................15
9. Wittenberg 7-5.................14
10. PSU-Behrend 8-3...............11
Others receiving votes: Muskingum 8, Lake Erie 8, Case Western 4, Ohio Northern 4, Albion 3, Wilmington 1, Grove City 1
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#3 Capital @ #5 Heidelberg
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #7t Wabash
Saturday
#1 Wooster @ #9 Wittenberg
Only change is Calvin moves up a tie to #7, Witt "drops" to #9
This regional poll is a great idea and a nice way to get a broader feel for the region prior to the NCAA rankings. When do the first NCAA regional rankings come out?
Quote from: DCHopeNut on January 16, 2008, 08:57:43 AM
This regional poll is a great idea and a nice way to get a broader feel for the region prior to the NCAA rankings. When do the first NCAA regional rankings come out?
The NCAA regional rankings are released on Feb 13, Feb 20 and Feb 27.
I wonder if anyone that voted Wooster #1 could give me their explanation as to why they think Wooster is so much more respected in this small posters poll than they are in the D3 Top 25 relative to Hope? The last national poll has Hope at 6 and Wooster at 20 but in this poll we have Wooster higher (albeit a close race). I am not at all suggesting I think anyone is wrong. As I said I still fear Hope is rated to highly in the Top 25. I just wonder if anyone has a good explanation for why Wooster may be under appreciated nationally. ???
I hope this answer to DCHopeNut's question is not taken the wrong way, but ...
I am one of the voters who ranked Wooster at 1. The easiest answer is that I am a Wooster grad and fan. But that is not the complete answer.
I have Wooster, Hope and Capital all in my top 3, and I have to sort them from there. (I am beginning to re-tink my Capital ranking, but that is not part of this discussion.) If I look at the Wooster and Hope results so far, I find it easier to evaluate the Wooster results because I know more about the teams that they have played. I don't know anything about Cornerstone, Aquinas (x2) and Marygrove other than Hope plays them every year. The D3 schedule that Hope has played so far is very impressive, but it is only six games (5-1, 2-0 MIAA, 5-1 GL). Wooster has played ten D3 teams (9-1, 4-0 NCAC, 5-0 GL). As the season moves on, there will be more for me to judge on.
And just because I am a Wooster grad/fan does not mean that I will always vote them #1. I will evaluate all teams fairly.
DCHN-
As a Wooster poster, I didn't vote Woo #1 in this poll, I slotted Hope into the top spot. I'm deferring to the national pollsters there, but at the same time, I have seen Wooster, Capital, Heidelberg and Ohio Wesleyan in person, and followed closely the Wooster-Wabash game from this weekend. Of those four teams, Wooster beat Bash and OWU, and my assessment is that Wooster is better than Capital and Heidelberg. In a lapse of judgment, I missed the Capital-Carnegie Mellon game on 12/31, otherwise I would have seen them, too, and compared them to Wooster. So, at the very top of my regional ballot, Hope, Wooster and C-M are all basically equal in my eyes currently, because I have very little information to try to separate them from one another.
So you can see how Wooster would be right at the top of a regional ballot, but maybe still quite a ways down in a national ballot, because those pollsters feel that there is a larger gap between Hope/Capital/Wooster than I think there is. (They also disagree with me about Wooster being better than Capital.)
Wooster's national poll standing was hurt by starting the season 2-2, especially with a loss at Lake Erie, who, while a good team, is not considered national-caliber. Wooster was expected to win that game, even though it was on the road at Lake Erie. I believe they dropped to 25th in the poll after an 0-2 week with those two losses. Since then, Wooster has improved (especially with the impressive play of freshman post Brian Wickliffe) and has strung together 9 straight wins. The loss of Wittenberg as a national power this season also probably hurts the perception of the quality of the NCAC, though teams like Ohio Wesleyan and Wabash have made the league more competitive than it has been in recent years when it was only a Wooster/Wittenberg race.
I should also say that as a fan, I'm not really concerned about Wooster's national poll ranking. If they keep winning, it'll keep moving up- but the wins, not the poll ranking, is definitely the focus with Moore, I would think.
Quote from: pufin on January 16, 2008, 10:22:14 AM
Wooster has played ten D3 teams (9-1, 4-0 NCAC, 5-0 GL).
I believe that Wooster is 4-1 in the Great Lakes. 4 NCAC wins and a loss to Lake Erie.
BTW, the Lake Erie loss is my guess as to why the Scots aren't getting more love nationally. The Storm are not as strong as in past years and managed to lose to Earlham - a team thas has lost 11 straight and shows no sign of winning again anytime soon.
I agree with Bryan that I'm sure that Coach Moore is more concerned about winning the conference than he is about where they are ranked nationally. If they continue to win, the ranking will take care of itself.
Good responses pufin, kb and cmh. One thing to note. pufin, You have Wooster at 5-0 in the GL Region and I believe that they are 4-1. Remember, Wooster lost to LEC and that was an 'in-region' loss.
EDIT: As kb and cmh have already pointed out. ;)
Quote from: DCHopeNut on January 16, 2008, 09:52:56 AM
I wonder if anyone that voted Wooster #1 could give me their explanation as to why they think Wooster is so much more respected in this small posters poll than they are in the D3 Top 25 relative to Hope? The last national poll has Hope at 6 and Wooster at 20 but in this poll we have Wooster higher (albeit a close race). I am not at all suggesting I think anyone is wrong. As I said I still fear Hope is rated to highly in the Top 25. I just wonder if anyone has a good explanation for why Wooster may be under appreciated nationally. ???
DCHN,
I'll throw my 2 cents in as well and maybe that will also help to answer your question:
Personally, I have Hope #1 on my ballot like kb. However, I feel that Wooster and Hope are pretty dead even from a regional perspective. Hope got the nod, IMO, because their lone regional loss is better than Woo's lone regional loss (Elmhurst vs. Lake Erie). Outside of that, both Hope and Wooster have lost to a quality NAIA opponent and they have both also beaten a quality NAIA opponent. If things stay as they are now, I would expect these 2 will be very tight atop the rankings when the first regional rankings are released in Feb.
As for the national poll, I'm not sure why there is such a large gap between Hope and Wooster. Wooster plummetted in the polls after their loss to a very good Cedarville team on the road and they have only moved up 5 spots in the poll after winning 9 in a row. Hope's ranking seems to be fair, but looking at Wooster sitting at #20, I honestly don't think that there are 19 teams better than the Scots. Thankfully, this isn't DI football and Wooster should get a shot to prove themselves come March.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 16, 2008, 10:33:40 AM
I should also say that as a fan, I'm not really concerned about Wooster's national poll ranking. If they keep winning, it'll keep moving up- but the wins, not the poll ranking, is definitely the focus with Moore, I would think.
Another good point kb. The national rankings are merely for us fans to debate over. The polls that really matter are the NCAA Regional Polls. With only regional games from here on out, wins should be the most important thing on Wooster's mind. They already have 2 HUGE road wins as you pointed out at OWU and at Wabash. Their 3rd big road test comes this Saturday at Witt. If they can get the sweep of those 3 games, Wooster will not only have a huge leg up on the NCAC race, but also the GL Regional race as well seeing as Hope has really only had one road test and that was a win at Olivet. The Dutchmen still have road challeges at Albion and at Calvin to contend with. And K'zoo's upset of Albion might have gotten some eyes raised as well.
I am just wondering people's reasoning for having Capital ahead of CMU, when CMU beat Capital in Columbus? CMU has only lost once since opening day and that was to the #1 team in the country.
Personally, I have been reluctant to move CMU up higher on my ballot because of their lack of quality wins. Cap is their lone quality win on their schedule IMO. I guess you could say ONU was as well. But ONU clearly isn't the same top notch opponent they have been over the past few years.
I guess my view on the Tartans may change starting this Friday when they host #2 Brandeis. A CMU win could throw them right into the mix with Hope and Wooster at the top of the GL Region. A loss and I'm still going to keep them below the winner of the Cap/Heide game on Saturday.
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 16, 2008, 11:26:17 AM
Personally, I have been reluctant to move CMU up higher on my ballot because of their lack of quality wins. Cap is their lone quality win on their schedule IMO. I guess you could say ONU was as well. But ONU clearly isn't the same top notch opponent they have been over the past few years.
I guess my view on the Tartans may change starting this Friday when they host #2 Brandeis. A CMU win could throw them right into the mix with Hope and Wooster at the top of the GL Region. A loss and I'm still going to keep them below the winner of the Cap/Heide game on Saturday.
But why wouldnt you still put them ahead of Capital, since they beat them on the road?
I didnt mean putting them in first or anything like that, just why arent people rating them ahead of capital?
Oberlin beat Earlham
Earlham beat Lake Erie
Lake Erie beat Wooster
Wooster beat Walsh
Walsh beat Mt. Vernon Nazarene
Mt. Vernon Nazarene beat Ashland
Ashland beat Aquinas
Aquinas beat Hope
I don't vote in this poll, but if I did, I guess I'd have to vote Oberlin #1 in the region, at least until Denison beats them in Feb.! ;D
(But, seriously, I probably would put CMU ahead of Capital. In case anyone didn't know it already, I'm fairly unimpressed with Capital.)
Quote from: hugenerd on January 16, 2008, 12:36:06 PM
But why wouldnt you still put them ahead of Capital, since they beat them on the road?
I didnt mean putting them in first or anything like that, just why arent people rating them ahead of capital?
I'm looking at the entire body of work. Capital, while they did lose head to head vs. CMU also has several rather impressive road wins including @ Wittenberg, @ OWU @ JCU and @ ONU. They've also racked up some pretty impressive drubbings including beating Wilmington by 21, JCU by 15 and BW by 27. Granted, the OAC isn't as strong as in years past, but it is still a very good conference and these wins have to count for something.
CMU, on the other hand has what I would consider 2 quality wins out of their 10. Their road win at Cap obviously and their win over ONU at home. Other than that, only 3 teams of CMU's other 8 wins can boast a record of 0.500 or better with Juniata (9-5) the best of that bunch.
Like I said before. Let me see CMU start to rack up some UAA wins and maybe I'll start to warm on them a little more. Like I also said, unless they beat Brandeis this weekend, they won't be moving ahead of the Cap/Heide winner at least on my ballot.
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2008, 09:55:35 PM
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#3 Capital @ #5 Heidelberg
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #7t Wabash
Saturday
#1 Wooster @ #7t Wittenberg
We could add to that list Brandeis v. Carnegie Mellon on Friday. Obviously not a GL region game, though it counts as in-region for those two teams, and with all the debate about Mellon in here, can't hurt to pay attention to this one too.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 16, 2008, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2008, 09:55:35 PM
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#3 Capital @ #5 Heidelberg
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #7t Wabash
Saturday
#1 Wooster @ #7t Wittenberg
We could add to that list Brandeis v. Carnegie Mellon on Friday. Obviously not a GL region game, though it counts as in-region for those two teams, and with all the debate about Mellon in here, can't hurt to pay attention to this one too.
CMU also plays NYU on Sunday, but obviously the big game of the weekend (for CMU) is against Brandeis.
A point from the Wittenberg perspective-although Wittenberg's only chance of making the tournament is to successfully win the NCAC Tournament, they are a huge factor in the races. If they can successfully win a few games (i.e. win against Wooster) and improve their record-the wins by Capital, ONU, Transy, will only look even better in the long run and help improve their regional ratings.
If Witt can successfully beat Wooster 1-2 times this year i belive with their continual improvement over the course of the year they will be major players in the season-some tough games to come in the next few weeks!
For those with interest:
http://www.capital.edu/166/
Link on that page to a live broadcast for tonight's Capital at Heidelberg game.
Quote from: hugenerd on January 16, 2008, 11:06:58 AM
I am just wondering people's reasoning for having Capital ahead of CMU, when CMU beat Capital in Columbus? CMU has only lost once since opening day and that was to the #1 team in the country.
Since I have the votes......the difference is 5 points, and Capital is #2 on 2 ballots vs CMU being #5 and #3 on the same two ballots. That accounts for 4 of the 5 points, otherwise its pretty much one in front of the other.
now sac i think hope schould be number 1 in the region with wooster lsoing what you think
Just picked this off the USA Web Site. Thought you might like to read it- though it is old news to all of you.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2008-01-15-milestone_N.htm
hmmm didnt i predict this last week.....witt entered back into the picture somewhat, but a tough couple games ahead
Should be an interesting poll this week, with some tough decisions. Tuesday nights the deadline...........make sure someone reminds me. :P
Week 2 Great Lakes Poll(Edited)........how they fared.
1. Wooster (4) 11-2..............75 def Hiram 117-87, lost @ Witt 86-87(OT)
2. Hope (4) 10-2...................74 def Kzoo 88-60, def Adrian 74-40
3. Capital 11-2......................60 def Heidelberg 99-90, def Otterbein 86-57
4. Carnegie Mellon 10-2.........55 lost Brandeis 48-60, lost NYU 58-63
5. Heidelberg 11-2.................51 lost Capital 90-99, def Muskingum 83-67
6. Ohio Wesleyan 8-4............35 lost @ Wabash 62-67, def Earlham 79-53
7t. Wabash 8-5.....................15 def Ohio Wes 67-62, def Oberline 99-84
7t. Calvin 7-5........................15 def Adrian 79-67, lost Albion 68-73
9. Wittenberg 7-5.................14 def Earlham 59-49, def Wooster 87-86(OT)
10. PSU-Behrend 8-3...............11 def Mount Aloysius 82-64, def LaRoche 71-60
Others receiving votes: Muskingum 8, Lake Erie 8, Case Western 4, Ohio Northern 4, Albion 3, Wilmington 1, Grove City 1
Quote from: sac on January 20, 2008, 05:12:04 PM
Should be an interesting poll this week, with some tough decisions. Tuesday nights the deadline...........make sure someone reminds me. :P
I tried to sort out my poll yesterday and I feel pretty strongly about my top 4. But after that, it was like picking out of a hat almost. Tough decisions might be an understatement.
Week 3 Great Lakes Region poll
1. Hope (7) 12-2...................88
2. Capital (1) 13-2................77
3. Wooster (1) 12-3..............75
4. Heidelberg 12-3................50
5. Wittenberg 10-5................49
6. Wabash 10-5.....................48
7. Carnegie Mellon 10-4.........42
8. Ohio Wesleyan 9-5.............28
9. PSU-Behrend 12-3..............20
10. Albion 8-5.........................10
Others receiving votes: Calvin 8, Muskingum 2, Ohio Northern 2, Bethany 1
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#8 Ohio Wesleyan @ #5 Wittenberg
Saturday
#1 Hope @ Calvin
***Notable weirdness, Heidelberg loses and moves up 1 spot.
Can I vote for the Hope women?
that Capital loss by Wittenberg earlier in the year is looking better and better
Quote from: sac on January 22, 2008, 10:11:05 PM
Week 3 Great Lakes Region poll
1. Hope (7) 12-2...................88
2. Capital (1) 13-2................77
3. Wooster (1) 12-3..............75
4. Heidelberg 12-3................50
5. Wittenberg 10-5................49
6. Wabash 10-5.....................48
7. Carnegie Mellon 10-4.........42
8. Ohio Wesleyan 9-5.............28
9. PSU-Behrend 12-3..............20
10. Albion 8-5.........................10
Others receiving votes: Calvin 8, Muskingum 2, Ohio Northern 2, Bethany 1
Key matchups this week
Wednesday
#8 Ohio Wesleyan @ #5 Wittenberg
Saturday
#1 Hope @ Calvin
***Notable weirdness, Heidelberg loses and moves up 1 spot.
A little surprised that Wooster still got a first-place vote after losing to Witt even if that is a serious rivalry game. Also the fact that Capital is still just 2 points ahead of Witt. I think that really shows the long history of success and respect that Witt has built.
Looks as though we finally have a Cap believer among us as they pick up a 1st place vote for the 1st time.
How about the virtual tie between Witt, Heide and Wabash as well? Only 2 points seperate 4th-6th!
I'm feel justified as I had OWU at 5th and Witt at 6th in my latest poll. Beyond 7th (Heidelberg) I am really having a tough time filling slots as nobody seems to be playing consistent enough to stay in.
Ohio Wesleyan wins at home against Wittenberg 70-67.
So #8 beats #5 in the first "key matchup" of the week.
Week 3 How they fared
1. Hope 14-2..........................won @ Alma 81-55; won @ Calvin 79-76
2. Capital 15-2 .....................won Marietta 79-53; won @ Bald-Wally 77-71
3. Wooster 14-3...................won Denison 97-57; won Earlham 89-68
4. Heidelberg 14-3................won Bald-Wally 100-96;won Wilmington 82-72
5. Wittenberg 11-6...............lost @ #8 OWU 67-70; won Kenyon 74-61
6. Wabash 12-5....................won @ Earlham 65-55; won Denison 66-47
7. Carnegie Mellon 11-5........won @ Case West 86-72; lost @ Emory 89-85
8. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5..........won #5 Wittenberg 70-67; won Allegheny 75-57
9. PSU-Behrend 13-4.............won @ Lake Erie 58-42; lost @ Frostburg St 57-60
10. Albion 10-5......................won Adrian 70-61; won @ Tri-State 73-64
The scoreboard says that CMU lost at Emory.
Quote from: pufin on January 28, 2008, 04:34:40 PM
The scoreboard says that CMU lost at Emory.
They did - Emory had quite the weekend!
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2008, 04:10:37 PM
Week 3 How they fared
1. Hope 14-2..........................won @ Alma 81-55; won @ Calvin 79-76
2. Capital 15-2 .....................won Marietta 79-53; won @ Bald-Wally 77-71
3. Wooster 14-3...................won Denison 97-57; won Earlham 89-68
4. Heidelberg 14-3................won Bald-Wally 100-96;won Wilmington 82-72
5. Wittenberg 11-6...............lost @ #8 OWU 67-70; won Kenyon 74-61
6. Wabash 12-5....................won @ Earlham 65-55; won Denison 66-47
7. Carnegie Mellon 11-5........won @ Case West 86-72; won @ Emory 89-85
8. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5..........won #5 Wittenberg 70-67; won Allegheny 75-57
9. PSU-Behrend 13-4.............won @ Lake Erie 58-42; lost @ Frostburg St 57-60
10. Albion 10-5......................won Adrian 70-61; won @ Tri-State 73-64
Could we have a "How They Fared" for
26-30 11-14? ;) ;D
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2008, 04:10:37 PM
9. PSU-Behrend 13-4.............won @ Lake Erie 58-42; lost @ Frostburg St 57-60
That AMCC race (http://www.d3hoops.com/conference/AMCC/mens) is nutty--eight teams within two games of the lead (i.e. between 7-3 and 5-5). FSU is in 9th place, 4-13 overall, and they upend league-leading Behrend?!
Quote from: pufin on January 28, 2008, 04:34:40 PM
The scoreboard says that CMU lost at Emory.
Typo, its corrected now
Quote from: David Collinge on January 28, 2008, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2008, 04:10:37 PM
Week 3 How they fared
1. Hope 14-2..........................won @ Alma 81-55; won @ Calvin 79-76
2. Capital 15-2 .....................won Marietta 79-53; won @ Bald-Wally 77-71
3. Wooster 14-3...................won Denison 97-57; won Earlham 89-68
4. Heidelberg 14-3................won Bald-Wally 100-96;won Wilmington 82-72
5. Wittenberg 11-6...............lost @ #8 OWU 67-70; won Kenyon 74-61
6. Wabash 12-5....................won @ Earlham 65-55; won Denison 66-47
7. Carnegie Mellon 11-5........won @ Case West 86-72; won @ Emory 89-85
8. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5..........won #5 Wittenberg 70-67; won Allegheny 75-57
9. PSU-Behrend 13-4.............won @ Lake Erie 58-42; lost @ Frostburg St 57-60
10. Albion 10-5......................won Adrian 70-61; won @ Tri-State 73-64
Could we have a "How They Fared" for 26-30 11-14? ;) ;D
The ORV category had a rather undistinguished week:
Calvin 8.....................won @ Kalamazoo 95-81;
lost vs Hope 79-76Muskingum 2.............
lost vs. JCU 73-66; won vs. Mt. Union 72-60
Ohio Northern 2........won @ Marietta 80-56
Bethany 1..................won @ W&J 86-83 (OT); won @ Thomas More 77-76
Reminder to vote in the poll if you haven't, newcomers always welcome. I've go 7 so far, missing 3 who voted last week with one newcomer.
I'll post it sometime after 9 or 10 o'clock and can edit if necessary.
Should have mine in soon, Sac.
Week 4 Great Lakes Rankings
1. Hope 14-2 (9)...................99
2. Capital 15-2 (1)...............86
3. Wooster 14-3..................85
4. Heidelberg 14-3................67
5. Wabash 12-5....................56
6. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5.........45
7. Wittenberg 11-6..............33
8. Albion 10-5......................32
9. Carnegie-Mellon 11-5........27
10. Penn St. Behrend 13-4....11
Others: Calvin 3, Grove City 2, Muskingum 2, Bethany 1, Ohio Northern 1
Key Matchups
Wednesday
#7t Wittenber @ #5 Wabash
Saturday
#1 Hope @ #8 Albion
#6 Ohio Wesleyan @ #3 Wooster
#9 Carnegie-Mellon @ National #1 Washington Univ.
number 1 hope lost to number 8 today albion today 56 to 52
With GL Fan Poll #1 Hope losing yesterday and #2 Capital losing on Wednesday does this push Wooster back into the top spot? With Wooster's win over GL #6 OWU, I think I'll be voting the Scots #1 for the 1st time this week.
I haven't decided yet on the top of my ballot, but CM will definitely take a bounce up - they hammered WashU by 31 today!
Confusing couple of weeks for voters of Carnegie Mellon, lose 3 of 4 then beat Chicago and WashU in the span of two nights. To be honest though they needed those wins. At 10-5 in region they still have a Pool C pulse.
Since the NCAA focuses on in-region record I'm going to try and remember to include each ranked team in-region record.
I believe this week is the first official Great Lakes Poll.
So, should we vote as the regional committee might vote (using just the regional record), or should we rank the teams according to their actual strengths (or our perception of their actual strengths)?
Quote from: cmhscots on January 16, 2008, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on January 16, 2008, 08:57:43 AM
This regional poll is a great idea and a nice way to get a broader feel for the region prior to the NCAA rankings. When do the first NCAA regional rankings come out?
The NCAA regional rankings are released on Feb 13, Feb 20 and Feb 27.
I am not sure if cmhscots is correct on these dates (I looked to confirm on the ncaa website but I was unable to find any information). But if the first ranking is Feb. 13 than we have to wait another week.
Quote from: pufin on February 04, 2008, 08:51:35 AM
So, should we vote as the regional committee might vote (using just the regional record), or should we rank the teams according to their actual strengths (or our perception of their actual strengths)?
FWIW, I've been doing a little of both. I weigh regional record more knowing that the NCAA bases their rankings solely on regional records. But I don't overlook quality wins that came against non-NCAA opponents or non-regional opponents either. Nor do I overlook losses that may have came from non-regional opponents.
I am hoping later on someone will compile a "how the teams" fared chart but I thought I'd throw out Massey's strength of schedule rankings for these teams. I note this does NOT yet include last weeks games. But I was looking at the Massey rankings for something else and thought the rankings were interesting.
Week 4 Great Lakes Rankings: Massey SoS
1. Hope 14-2 (9)...................45
2. Capital 15-2 (1)...............128
3. Wooster 14-3..................165
4. Heidelberg 14-3................145
5. Wabash 12-5....................168
6. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5.........71
7. Wittenberg 11-6..............195
8. Albion 10-5......................72
9. Carnegie-Mellon 11-5........73
10. Penn St. Behrend 13-4....297
Others: Calvin 55, Grove City 332, Muskingum 239, Bethany 354, Ohio Northern 77
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 04, 2008, 09:03:23 AM
Quote from: cmhscots on January 16, 2008, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on January 16, 2008, 08:57:43 AM
This regional poll is a great idea and a nice way to get a broader feel for the region prior to the NCAA rankings. When do the first NCAA regional rankings come out?
The NCAA regional rankings are released on Feb 13, Feb 20 and Feb 27.
I am not sure if cmhscots is correct on these dates (I looked to confirm on the ncaa website but I was unable to find any information). But if the first ranking is Feb. 13 than we have to wait another week.
My info came from the DIII men's Handbook ==> http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf
Assuming that it is correct (which is not always a good assumption!) the first regional ranking will indeed be on Feb 13.
I was thumbing through the NCAA Handbood and I was looking over who was on the GL Regional Advisory Committee. I found it interesting that the PrAC was the only conference in the region represented by more than one school. The chair is from Westminster and there is also a representative from Bethany. Also of note, the AMCC does not have a representative on the committe...
Does anyone know how Regional Advisory Committees are chosen and wouldn't it seem kind of important to have at least one representative from each conference in every respcetive region?
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 04, 2008, 10:35:08 AM
I was thumbing through the NCAA Handbood and I was looking over who was on the GL Regional Advisory Committee. I found it interesting that the PrAC was the only conference in the region represented by more than one school. The chair is from Westminster and there is also a representative from Bethany. Also of note, the AMCC does not have a representative on the committe...
Does anyone know how Regional Advisory Committees are chosen and wouldn't it seem kind of important to have at least one representative from each conference in every respcetive region?
The AMCC is divided between the Great Lakes and the Mid-Atlantic Regions, and the AMCC rep (Penn St.-Altoona coach Alan Seretti) is on the MA advisory committee. If there had to be a rep from each conference that has a member in the region, five of the eight UAA coaches would be panelists, as that conference has members in the NE, E, S, GL, and MW regions.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 04, 2008, 11:09:37 AM
If there had to be a rep from each conference that has a member in the region, five of the eight UAA coaches would be panelists, as that conference has members in the NE, E, S, GL, and MW regions.
Never thought about that... :P Thanks for the response David.
As far as one conference having multiple reps, is that just cyclical?
I can't tell for sure from reading the handbook, but I'd guess that the regional chairperson is probably a non-voting member (to the extent that there's any voting, see below) of the regional committee. The eight regional chairs form the national committee, and it is in them that the real power vests. In each case that I can identify at a glance, the conference of the regional chair has a second member on the regional committee (i.e., MW Region chair is from Anderson, while there is a voting member from Manchester, both HCAC.) Members of the regional committees are selected by the conference commissioners, and the regional committee is "advisory only." They "advise" the national committee by means of, among other things, compilation of the regional rankings.
Interesting to note that there are two UAA coaches currently on committees: CWRU's Sean McDonnel (GL) and Chicago's Mike McGrath (MW). Neither are chairs, but both come from regions where the UAA has two members (however, there also are two UAA members in the East, but no UAA rep on that panel.)
I have no idea what lengths the terms are, sorry.
Makes sense. Thanks for the info David.
You can use whatever criteria you want to cast your vote. This is informal. I just thought we've reached a point in the season when the in-region record starts to take focus a little.
How they fared, the second set of record numbers in italics is the in-region records of each team. Corrections are welcome as I pretty much rifled through them and only counted once.
Week 4 Great Lakes Rankings
1. Hope 15-3; 10-2 (9)...................won Tri-State 93-60; lost @ Albion 52-56
2. Capital 16-3; 15-3 (1)...............lost @ Wilmington 55-72; won JCU 113-78
3. Wooster 16-3; 9-2....................won @ Allegheny 78-61; won OWU 73-65
4. Heidelberg 15-4; 13-3...............lost @ Ohio No. 72-89; won Mt. Union 68-50
5. Wabash 13-6; 10-4....................lost Wittenberg 52-54; won Kenyon 58-49
6. Ohio Wesleyan 12-6; 11-4.........won @ Oberlin 84-69; lost Wooster 65-73
7. Wittenberg 13-6; 12-4..............won @ Wabash 54-52; won @ Hiram 91-85
8. Albion 12-5; 8-3..........................won @ Alma 75-73 OT; won Hope 56-52
9. Carnegie-Mellon 13-5; 10-4........won Chicago 74-60; won #1Wash U. 86-55
10. Penn St. Behrend 15-4; 13-3....won Mt. Aloysius 98-84; won Pitt-Green 73-47
Sorry its late for some, but between the super bowl and a busy day I just couldn't get this up sooner.
sac, I didn't check the others, but at least Woo and Cap are last week's overall records, not current: both are now 16-3.
Thanks, I realize now I only changed one record, then forgot to do the rest. I'll update it.
I have Wabash's in-region record as 10-4 (losses to Hanover, Kenyon, Wooster, Wittenberg).
Quote from: pufin on February 05, 2008, 08:13:55 AM
I have Wabash's in-region record as 10-4 (losses to Hanover, Kenyon, Wooster, Wittenberg).
pufin's correct. Wabash's in-region record is 10-4 and not 11-2.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2008, 08:34:50 PM
8. Albion 12-5; 8-3..........................won @ Alma 75-3 OT; won Hope 56-52
How do you win by 72 points in overtime? ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2008, 08:34:50 PM
How they fared, the second set of record numbers in italics is the in-region records of each team. Corrections are welcome as I pretty much rifled through them and only counted once.
Week 4 Great Lakes Rankings
1. Hope 15-3; 10-2 (9)...................won Tri-State 93-60; lost @ Albion 52-56
2. Capital 16-3; 15-3 (1)...............lost @ Wilmington 55-72; won JCU 113-78
3. Wooster 16-3; 9-2....................won @ Allegheny 78-61; won OWU 73-65
4. Heidelberg 15-4; 13-3...............lost @ Ohio No. 72-89; won Mt. Union 68-50
5. Wabash 13-6; 11-2....................lost Wittenberg 52-54; won Kenyon 58-49
6. Ohio Wesleyan 12-6; 11-4.........won @ Oberlin 84-69; lost Wooster 65-73
7. Wittenberg 13-6; 12-4..............won @ Wabash 54-52; won @ Hiram 91-85
8. Albion 12-5; 8-3..........................won @ Alma 75-3 OT; won Hope 56-52
9. Carnegie-Mellon 13-5; 10-5........won Chicago 74-60; won #1Wash U. 86-55
10. Penn St. Behrend 15-4; 13-3....won Mt. Aloysius 98-84; won Pitt-Green 73-47
Sorry its late for some, but between the super bowl and a busy day I just couldn't get this up sooner.
CMU is 10-4 in region (not 10-5), their loss to Johns Hopkins is out of region.
So next time I'll proof it first. ;)
sac, Now you see why I don't even attempt this with the national Posters' Poll (and you've just got 10 teams)! I think David does an amazing job on the "How They Fared" (and still has to make some corrections nearly every week) - I'm trusting that will serve voters for most of the teams they're considering; the other 5-10, they're on their own! ;)
Well I was in a hurry last night, didn't double check things. I can explain the Carnegie-Mellon in-region record. I was in a PM debate about whether JohnsHopkins/CMU was in-region........it was listed as such yesterday afternoon. I hadn't heard back untill today, and obviously its been changed.
Yeah, there was a discussion of this on the Pool C board yesterday. CMU to JHU is about 250 miles, over the 200 mile threshold.
Too bad conference games are considered in region, or else CMU would have all their losses be against teams from over 200 miles away!
SAC where you going to try and post them tonight maybe a snow for kids wed 6-12 inches of snow they are calling for in holland
Great Lakes Regional Poll Week 5
1. Hope 15-3; 10-2 (4)...................94
2. Wooster 16-3; 9-2 (5)................92
3. Capital 16-3; 15-3 (1)................82
4. Wittenberg 13-6; 12-4...............54
5. Carnegie-Mellon 13-5; 10-4.........51
6. Heidelberg 15-4; 13-3.................50
7. Albion 12-5; 8-3........................49
8. Wabash 13-6; 10-4....................39
9. Ohio Wesleyan 12-6; 11-4...........27
10. Calvin 11-7; 6-3........................6
Others receiving votes: PSU-Behrend 3, Wilmington 3
Key matchups
Wed: #8 Wabash @ #9 Ohio Wesleyan
Fri: #5 Carnegie-Mellon @ #9 national Washington U
Sat: #8 Wabash @ #2 Wooster
(make or break week for Wabash?)
9 of 10 places changed this week, only Hope mantained their ranking by a slim margin. #'s 4 thru 9 each received votes in at least 5 different positions.
EDIT: Received one more vote: Heidelberg and Albion switched places.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 05, 2008, 03:37:56 PM
Yeah, there was a discussion of this on the Pool C board yesterday. CMU to JHU is about 250 miles, over the 200 mile threshold.
Too bad conference games are considered in region, or else CMU would have all their losses be against teams from over 200 miles away!
A loss to Rochester would count anyway, as both are in the same administrative region. No such luck. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 05, 2008, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 05, 2008, 03:37:56 PM
Yeah, there was a discussion of this on the Pool C board yesterday. CMU to JHU is about 250 miles, over the 200 mile threshold.
Too bad conference games are considered in region, or else CMU would have all their losses be against teams from over 200 miles away!
A loss to Rochester would count anyway, as both are in the same administrative region. No such luck. :)
I am not familiar with the administrative regions, but on the Pool C board, CMU is listed in the GL and Rochester in the East (and they are 270 miles apart). Either way, this is completely hypothetical so regardless of those rules, conference games count anyway.
The "East" that Rochester is in is an "evaluation region," one of 8 (Great Lakes is another.) Rochester and CMU are also in "administrative region 2," which encompasses New York and Pennsylvania.
http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=44
Quote from: David Collinge on February 06, 2008, 12:49:28 AM
The "East" that Rochester is in is an "evaluation region," one of 8 (Great Lakes is another.) Rochester and CMU are also in "administrative region 2," which encompasses New York and Pennsylvania.
http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=44
Thanks, I guess I missed the fine print.
Quote from: sac on February 05, 2008, 10:46:05 PM
Key matchups
Wed: #8 Wabash @ #9 Ohio Wesleyan
Fri: #5 Carnegie-Mellon @ #9 national Washington U
Sat: #8 Wabash @ #2 Wooster
(make or break week for Wabash?)
Yep, it's time to get it done or go home for the LGs.
It's extra important for Wabash to come away with some road NCAC wins because Bash already has two home NCAC losses (Witt and Woo). OWU has one (Woo), and Woo and Witt haven't lost at home in the NCAC so far. Also, a win tonight over OWU would give Bash the season sweep of the Bishops.
Hopefully I'm not jinxing them when I point it out, but Wooster is the only NCAC team that hasn't lost any home games this year (9-0). Glancing at the schedule, it looks like Hope hasn't lost at DeVos yet, either.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 06, 2008, 02:36:19 PM
It's extra important for Wabash to come away with some road NCAC wins because Bash already has two home NCAC losses (Witt and Woo). OWU has one (Woo), and Woo and Witt haven't lost at home in the NCAC so far.
And Kenyon only has lost one as well (OWU), with Witt the only formidable team yet to visit Gambier.
First official NCAA rankings coming out in 2 days! :-\
Great Lakes Region Poll --Week 5 how they fared
1. Hope (4) 17-3, 12-2.................won Olivet 86-58; won @ Kzoo 74-58
2. Wooster (5) 18-3, 11-2............won Hiram 104-61; won Wabash 83-71
3. Capital (1) 18-3, 17-3..............won @ Marietta 82-48; won Muskingum 72-66
4. Wittenberg 15-6, 14-4.............won Earlham 70-54; won Allegheny 78-66
5. Carnegie-Mellon 13-7, 10-6.....lost @ Wash U 68-79; lost @ Chicago 78-97
6. Heidelberg 16-5, 14-4..............lost @ Bald-Wally 84-87; won Marietta 93-66
7. Albion 14-5, 10-3......................won Kzoo 80-54; won @ Olivet 59-43
8. Wabash 13-8, 10-6..................lost @ Ohio Wesl 57-96; lost @ Wooster 71-83
9. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6, 13-4.......won Wabash 86-57; won Hiram 85-71
10. Calvin 13-7, 8-3.....................won Alma 74-60; won Adrian 63-48
The records should be current and hopefully correct. Given my track record, corrections always welcome.
So we'll get one night to dissect the GL poster's opinions on the region tonight, and then we'll get the "real" poll from the NCAA tomorrow.
Will 6 teams be ranked from the Great Lakes? Wasn't that the amount from previous years?
Great Lakes Region Poll Week 6
1. Hope (5) 17-3, 12-2.................85
2. Wooster (4) 18-3, 11-2............82
3. Capital 18-3, 17-3....................76
4. Albion 14-5, 10-3......................55
5. Wittenberg 15-6, 14-4.............54
6. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6, 13-4.......39
7. Heidelberg 16-5, 14-4..............34
8. Calvin 13-7, 8-3.........................22
9. PSU-Behrend 17-4, 15-3............21
10. Carnegie-Mellon 13-7, 10-6.....14
Others: Ohio Northern 7, Lake Erie 4, Wabash 2
Key games
Wednesday
#8 Calvin @ #4 Albion
#6 Ohio Weleyan @ #5 Wittenberg
Saturday
#5 Wittenberg @ #2 Wooster
Sunday
#10 Carnegie Mellon @ National #10 Brandeis
Albion was the big mover up, jumping 3 place, Carnegie Mellon falls 5 after 2 UAA losses. Penn St.-Behrend joins the top 10, Wabash drops out.
Interestingly, #6 OWU has beaten both #4 Albion and #5 Wittenberg. Their only losses since the Albion game were at Wabash (by 5) and at Wooster (by 8.)
Quote from: David Collinge on February 12, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
Interestingly, #6 OWU has beaten both #4 Albion and #5 Wittenberg. Their only losses since the Albion game were at Wabash (by 5) and at Wooster (by 8.)
Yeah, I had OWU above Witt on my current ballot. Of course, I also got to see OWU dismantle Wabash in person last week.
Witt was ahead of Albion on 6 of the 9 ballots, the ninth ballot as I counted them was particularly damaging to the Tigers, which was odd because it was the lowest Albion was slotted.
Albion was ahead of OWU on all 9 ballots.
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2008, 11:36:10 PM
Albion was ahead of OWU on all 9 ballots.
See, I don't get that. I was at the OWU/Albion game, and while it wasn't exactly dominant, there was little doubt left as to which was the better team. And OWU has done nothing but improve since then. But since I don't vote in polls like this, I guess I forfeit the right to complain about the results.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 13, 2008, 11:56:46 AM
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2008, 11:36:10 PM
Albion was ahead of OWU on all 9 ballots.
See, I don't get that. I was at the OWU/Albion game, and while it wasn't exactly dominant, there was little doubt left as to which was the better team. And OWU has done nothing but improve since then. But since I don't vote in polls like this, I guess I forfeit the right to complain about the results.
The only rationale I can give is that Albion has its victory over Hope, while OWU lost to Wooster twice...at least, I moved Albion well up on my ballot after the Hope victory.
I was also only looking at recent results and tweaking my ballot...I forgot about the Albion-OWU head-to-head matchup when filling out this ballot. (Perhaps other posters are also forgetting about this neutral-floor meeting.)
We get our first look at the real rankings tonight. Going off RPI and in-region records, I'm guessing
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Cap
4. PSU-Behrend
5. Wittenberg
6. Albion
If I did RPI right (unlikely), and using in-region records, this is how it should shake out.
I have the RPI's like this
Capital-----2.452
Wooster---2.391
Hope-------2.378
Albion------2.199
PSB---------2.184
Witt--------2.15
OWU-------2.35
We'll see but I think in-region record might carry more weight.
I'm "Guessing":
1. Capital
2. Wooster
3. Hope
4. OWU
5. Heidelberg
6. PSU-Behrend
;) ;) ;)
Here's the OFFICIAL NCAA POLL
Great Lakes Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Capital 18-3 17-3
2. Wooster 18-3 11-2
3. Hope 17-3 10-2
4. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6 13-4
5. Heidelberg 16-5 14-4
6. Penn State-Behrend 17-4 15-3
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2008, 03:04:31 PM
Here's the OFFICIAL NCAA POLL
Great Lakes Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Capital 18-3 17-3
2. Wooster 18-3 11-2
3. Hope 17-3 10-2
4. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6 13-4
5. Heidelberg 16-5 14-4
6. Penn State-Behrend 17-4 15-3
As mentioned on the MIAA board. Official and wrong! Hope is 12-2 in region. I suggest fans of any other team on this list check their teams regional record as well.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 13, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 13, 2008, 03:55:00 PM
As mentioned on the MIAA board. Official and wrong! Hope is 12-2 in region. I suggest fans of any other team on this list check their teams regional record as well.
How is it wrong when Cap clearly has the best RPI? You think Hope is getting screwed because they have the best regional record, check out the East Region where Plattsburg State is undefeated in regional play. Yet their 16-0 record has them 2nd behind Rochester at 16-3. I didn't figure RPI's for either of these two, but I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Rochester's is higher than Plattsburg's... That's just the nature of the beast.
DC meant the in-region record was wrong - 12-2 not 10-2. Whether or not he also thought the placement was wrong, I'll let him answer. ;)
Yeah, now I see what DC was talking about. Sorry for the mix up.
Still, were Sac's RPI's done with the games that the NCAA seems to be missing? From his calculations Wooster still has a higher RPI than Hope... I would guess it wouldn't change anything.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2008, 01:05:07 PM
If I did RPI right (unlikely), and using in-region records, this is how it should shake out.
I have the RPI's like this
Capital-----2.452
Wooster---2.391
Hope-------2.378
Albion------2.199
PSB---------2.184
Witt--------2.15
OWU-------2.35
We'll see but I think in-region record might carry more weight.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 13, 2008, 04:33:53 PM
Yeah, now I see what DC was talking about. Sorry for the mix up.
Still, were Sac's RPI's done with the games that the NCAA seems to be missing? From his calculations Wooster still has a higher RPI than Hope... I would guess it wouldn't change anything.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2008, 01:05:07 PM
If I did RPI right (unlikely), and using in-region records, this is how it should shake out.
I have the RPI's like this
Capital-----2.452
Wooster---2.391
Hope-------2.378
Albion------2.199
PSB---------2.184
Witt--------2.15
OWU-------2.35
We'll see but I think in-region record might carry more weight.
I think it'd make it a closer issue. And my real concern is not with these rankings, they don't influence who makes the tourney. However, 2.5 weeks from now when the NCAA is deciding who makes the tourney and how to seed them those 2 wins may make a big difference. Of course all that depends on how all these teams finish out their seasons.
Order really isn't all that important right now, but accuracy is. I'd really like an explanation for the 10-2 in-region record. I'm hopeing its just a typo, but if its not, ..........well I just don't know what to say. It doesn't instill alot of confidence that your team or other teams will be dealt with fairly and correctly come tournament selection time.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2008, 04:50:34 PM
Order really isn't all that important right now, but accuracy is. I'd really like an explanation for the 10-2 in-region record. I'm hopeing its just a typo, but if its not, ..........well I just don't know what to say. It doesn't instill alot of confidence that your team or other teams will be dealt with fairly and correctly come tournament selection time.
I like Pat's hypothesis under Daily Dose. They forgot Roanoke because it does not naturally appear to be regional but is regional due to the Administrative regions rule. Second, maybe a new administration at NCAA is not counting Carthage anymore. While I agree with the logic of that I would be upset by the inconsistency.
While dropping Hope-Carthage as in-region would no doubt be correct, what will we do without 'magic ferry' jokes?! :D ["We'll always have condiments."]
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2008, 05:54:26 PM
While dropping Hope-Carthage as in-region would no doubt be correct, what will we do without 'magic ferry' jokes?! :D ["We'll always have condiments."]
Give us time and I am sure we'll think of something else. And if that fails I am sure the NCAA will provide us with some entertainment...they've never failed me before.
Ohio Wesleyan vindicated their regional ranking (from the NCAA) by completing a season sweep of Wittenberg tonight, 72-69 at Wittenberg.
That's a win that should help keep OWU in the conversation...though I'm not clear on OWU's possible Pool C chances if it didn't win the NCAC tourney. The Bishops would have at least 5 in-region losses in that situation, and would be 0-3 (or 4) in head-to-head results against regionally-ranked opponents Wooster and Capital.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 13, 2008, 11:54:00 PM
Ohio Wesleyan vindicated their regional ranking (from the NCAA) by completing a season sweep of Wittenberg tonight, 72-69 at Wittenberg.
That's a win that should help keep OWU in the conversation...though I'm not clear on OWU's possible Pool C chances if it didn't win the NCAC tourney. The Bishops would have at least 5 in-region losses in that situation, and would be 0-3 (or 4) in head-to-head results against regionally-ranked opponents Wooster and Capital.
To be in the conversation for Pool C, I would think OWU needs to get to the NCAC finals, which would mean another win over Witt most likely but most importantly pull for Hope, Capital and Wooster to win their conference tournaments.
Just an update on Hope's in-region record, Pat is going to "bundle" all his discrepencies together and approach the NCAA about them together. As of last night, he had not had a chance to put everything together.
I think the NCAC is a one-bid league unless Wooster loses in the NCAC final.
And just to give a timeframe, since I know that it's of particular interest to people here -- I hope to do this tonight but it will definitely get done so they have them in time to deliberate on Monday conference calls.
Quote from: smedindy on February 15, 2008, 03:22:50 PM
I think the NCAC is a one-bid league unless Wooster loses in the NCAC final.
As long as Woo, Cap, and Hope all win their auto bids, OWU is currently the first place GL pool C candidate - and I can't recall the GL ever not getting a pool C bid.
There be a first time for everything. OWU would have to make the NCAC final, I feel. I do realize their OWP and OOWP are pretty strong, especially for an NCAC team.
This is just a gut feelin'...
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 15, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 15, 2008, 03:22:50 PM
I think the NCAC is a one-bid league unless Wooster loses in the NCAC final.
As long as Woo, Cap, and Hope all win their auto bids, OWU is currently the first place GL pool C candidate - and I can't recall the GL ever not getting a pool C bid.
It's also not unusual for an upset or two to occur in either the OAC, MIAA or the NCAC conference tournaments...
I think I side more with Mr. Ypsi though. If all fo the conference favorites garner the automatic bids from the GL Region and OWU loses in the NCAC finals, they should definately get some consideration for a Pool C, IMO. I would think at that point it would come down to how many upsets happened across the country in all the other conference tournaments. The fewer upsets, the better OWU's chances.
So which GL teams might you all say are in, even if they lose their conference tournament?
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 15, 2008, 04:52:00 PM
So which GL teams might you all say are in, even if they lose their conference tournament?
IF they have no more losses before their conference tourneys, I'd say Cap, Woo, and Hope are all locks for a C (and all would still be credible candidates even with one additional loss, though Hope's OWP/OOWP is a bit shaky). I haven't done my homework on other teams ranked below OWU.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 15, 2008, 04:42:53 PM
It's also not unusual for an upset or two to occur in either the OAC, MIAA or the NCAC conference tournaments...
I think I side more with Mr. Ypsi though. If all fo the conference favorites garner the automatic bids from the GL Region and OWU loses in the NCAC finals, they should definately get some consideration for a Pool C, IMO. I would think at that point it would come down to how many upsets happened across the country in all the other conference tournaments. The fewer upsets, the better OWU's chances.
When all is said and done, I think 'Berg may move ahead of OWU.
And it seems so, since OWU just whizzed it's "C" chance down its leg after losing to Earlham. Yes, Earlham. A team that Oberlin beat TWICE!
Nothing like following up your first sweep of Wittenberg in 50+ years with a loss to The EC?! :o ::) This is exactly what separates the haves from the have nots in the NCAC. Losses like this one suffered by OWU are almost unheard of at Wooster...
And as Smeds pointed out, the Bishops only shot at making the post season is to win the NCAC tournament. The EC shot down any hopes of a Pool C the Bishops thought they might still have today.
Something I saw on the Daily Dose from sac made me think of this. I looked in FAQ and didn't see anything so if I missed I apologize and please someone direct me accordingly. But I wonder are there any technical criteria to how the regional representatives rank teams? Of course only in-region games count and the NCAA makes use of something like RPI and I believe OWP and OOWP. But as sac noted it seems like the GL reps were looking at more than just the numbers, ie Hope women 2 and not 1, the men's side may be more accurate except it excludes 2 in region games for Hope, which may change things up.
This is taken directly from the tournament handbook
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The question most have is what does the committee do with the OWP and OOWP numbers, do they combine them in some way to get a single number. Who knows. In the case of the ladies its really hard to tell exactly what put Thomas More over Hope.
I haven't looked at the men's closely, I'm not positive Hope's 2 missing regional games would change things much. Pat has calculated OWP and OOWP using the games that are all supposed to be regional.
So, to be clear, a game such as St. Thomas v. Wooster would not and does not have any bearing on the primary criteria, right?
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2008, 01:24:24 PM
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
I read that to say that OWP and OOWP are calculated purely on the in-region games- and that "in-region" results only matter among other teams in the same region.
Does the secondary criteria add in the "Results vs. teams ranked in other regions?" and the "overall DIII winning percentage?"
I think it was pointed out elsewhere that Thomas More is 2-0 against regionally ranked teams while Hope is 1-0.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2008, 04:11:53 PM
I think it was pointed out elsewhere that Thomas More is 2-0 against regionally ranked teams while Hope is 1-0.
I went over that, and I came up with a .002 difference in the strength of schedule when you combine the numbers. Plus the 1 extra regionally ranked win.
Whatever was used to put Thomas More #1........its awfully close thats for certain.
This week Hope picks up another 2 in-region games to Thomas More's one, but the SOS numbers will probably favor TM by a slightly wider margin.
Let me apologize ahead of time for the poll this week, its going to be a little late and sorry I didn't get around to a "how they fared".
I'm off to watch my favorite 6-8 Sophomore High School Center tonight. I have visions of seeing him on ESPN someday playing for the big boys.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
I'm off to watch my favorite 6-8 Sophomore High School Center tonight. I have visions of seeing him on ESPN someday playing for the big boys.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisconsinhistory.org%2Fmuseum%2Fartifacts%2Farchives%2Fbigboy.jpg&hash=21fbba9b7ad07939f9a5b34aa7776fe1e5c81848)
Quote from: David Collinge on February 19, 2008, 06:30:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
I'm off to watch my favorite 6-8 Sophomore High School Center tonight. I have visions of seeing him on ESPN someday playing for the big boys.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisconsinhistory.org%2Fmuseum%2Fartifacts%2Farchives%2Fbigboy.jpg&hash=21fbba9b7ad07939f9a5b34aa7776fe1e5c81848)
That was just too easy. :D
I'm feeling cheated - our 'Big Boy' is only about 5'2" (though it might be close to 6'8" to the top of the burger). :(
Great Lakes Region Poll Week 7
1. Hope (3) 19-3, 14-2.................57
2. Wooster (3) 20-3, 13-2.............55
3. Capital 20-3, 19-3...................50
4. Albion 16-5, 12-3.....................49
5. Heidelberg 18-5, 16-4...............35
6. Calvin 15-7, 10-3......................23
7. Ohio Wesleyan 15-7, 14-5.........22
8t. Wittenberg 15-8, 14-6.............15
8t. PSU-Behrend 19-4, 17-3............15
10. Carnegie-Mellon 14-8, 11-7.......10
Others: Lake Erie 4, Wilmington 1
Key games
Wednesday
#5 Heidelberg @ #3 Capital
#6 Calvin @ #1 Hope
New rankings coming out in a few hours! This always makes me nervous. When the NCAA is in charge you just never know what to expect. :-\
My "Guess" for GL Region Rankings
1. Capital
2. Wooster
3. Hope
4. Albion :o
5. Heidelberg
6. PSU-Behrend
Here are the official Feb 20 rankings from the NCAA
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 20-3 19-3
2. Wooster 20-3 13-2
3. Hope 19-3 13-2
4. Albion 16-5 12-3
5. Penn State-Behrend 19-4 17-3
6. Heidelberg 18-5 16-4
It looks as if the committee has drydocked the SS Magic Kingdom for 2008, so Hope has 15 in-region games.
So Albion and the 'Berg are the two best "C" chances for the region?
Tri-State's not going to be much help for Albion. The 'Berg closes with Capital and Musky, on the road, and that won't be easy. No "C" for the GL?
Conference tournament games also count toward region games and regional rankings, correct?
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2008, 03:28:23 PM
Here are the official Feb 20 rankings from the NCAA
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 20-3 19-3
2. Wooster 20-3 13-2
3. Hope 19-3 13-2
4. Albion 16-5 12-3
5. Penn State-Behrend 19-4 17-3
6. Heidelberg 18-5 16-4
It looks as if the committee has drydocked the SS Magic Kingdom for 2008, so Hope has 15 in-region games.
I assume the NCAA added Roanoke and has decided that using the ferry was stupid last year. Well I agree but I find the NCAA's inconsistent application of its "rules" frustrating to say the least. >:( If the NCAA was going to fall back from its asinine interpretation of the rules last year it should have informed everyone at the beginning of the season! I realize Hope and Carthage would not have changed how it scheduled the MIAA/CCIW challenge but this inconsistent application of the 200 mile rule is just ridiculous.
I also note that on the Pool C board from last week someone pointed out that I believe DePauw and UChicago is not in region because mapquest insists you get to DePauw via Indianapolis. While in reality there is a faster and more direct way to get there (US 231, not even a small road). I don't expect much from the NCAA but logical consistency doesn't seem like asking much.
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 03:38:53 PM
So Albion and the 'Berg are the two best "C" chances for the region?
Tri-State's not going to be much help for Albion. The 'Berg closes with Capital and Musky, on the road, and that won't be easy. No "C" for the GL?
Gotta think that folks at Albion and Calvin are aiming at Hope as the best "C" chance for the region...
I think they corrected the DPU / Chicago issue. And yes, it would be nice for the NCAA to set its rules in stone to behin the year, but also, they allow teams with dual memberships in the NAIA (Neb. Wesleyan), NCCAA and USCAA (I think) to choose which tourney they wish to be included in, and that's during the season.
I think....
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2008, 03:49:25 PM
Conference tournament games also count toward region games and regional rankings, correct?
Yes. The selection committee(s) do a final, secret (ie. never released to the public) ranking after all the conference finals are completed, taking into account the results of those games.
Wooster won tonight 84-74 over Allegheny
Capital was upset by Heidelberg 80-74
Heidelberg beats Capital, 80-74.
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 20, 2008, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2008, 03:28:23 PM
Here are the official Feb 20 rankings from the NCAA
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 20-3 19-3
2. Wooster 20-3 13-2
3. Hope 19-3 13-2
4. Albion 16-5 12-3
5. Penn State-Behrend 19-4 17-3
6. Heidelberg 18-5 16-4
It looks as if the committee has drydocked the SS Magic Kingdom for 2008, so Hope has 15 in-region games.
I assume the NCAA added Roanoke and has decided that using the ferry was stupid last year. Well I agree but I find the NCAA's inconsistent application of its "rules" frustrating to say the least. >:( If the NCAA was going to fall back from its asinine interpretation of the rules last year it should have informed everyone at the beginning of the season!
I said this on the blog, but just because they didn't inform you or me doesn't mean they didn't inform the membership.
the committee didn't get the memo.
Because they correctly denoted Carthage/Hope as non-region last week and this week? I don't get what you're getting at.
Roanoke
Seems they did get the memo on Roanoke, since they changed it.
Listen -- you gotta remember that every system has a human element. We have games put into our system by human beings and they do too. Our human beings are imperfect and so are theirs. I happen to think ours are more dedicated to interpreting the rules correctly, but even so, we're not perfect.
I know you guys are bitter about Hope/Carthage but considering the state of the rules you had to assume it could be fixed at any time. And just because Indianapolis didn't post a memo to the message board doesn't mean for sure that it hasn't been communicated to the people that need to know.
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2008, 11:52:34 PM
the committee didn't get the memo.
Seems to me they did get the memo as Carthage has never been denoted as a regional game this season which is as it should have been all along. As far as Roanoke is concerned, I would just chalk that up to an honest mistake or an oversight. Mistakes do happen. As Pat said, these guys are human after all. Nobody's perfect. The important thing is it happened on the 1st poll which and was corrected by the 2nd poll and it really didn't make much of a difference as Wooster is still ranked ahead of Hope even with the Roanoke game included.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 09:34:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2008, 11:52:34 PM
the committee didn't get the memo.
Seems to me they did get the memo as Carthage has never been denoted as a regional game this season which is as it should have been all along. As far as Roanoke is concerned, I would just chalk that up to an honest mistake or an oversight. Mistakes do happen. As Pat said, these guys are human after all. Nobody's perfect. The important thing is it happened on the 1st poll which and was corrected by the 2nd poll and it really didn't make much of a difference as Wooster is still ranked ahead of Hope even with the Roanoke game included.
Just realize that it's pretty hard to accept the "we're human" excuse, when your school is the one that has had to suffer the consequences of it for several years in a row.
now with capital losing wed night i think hope will jump wooster for 1st place in the region
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2008, 09:52:37 AM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 09:34:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2008, 11:52:34 PM
the committee didn't get the memo.
Seems to me they did get the memo as Carthage has never been denoted as a regional game this season which is as it should have been all along. As far as Roanoke is concerned, I would just chalk that up to an honest mistake or an oversight. Mistakes do happen. As Pat said, these guys are human after all. Nobody's perfect. The important thing is it happened on the 1st poll which and was corrected by the 2nd poll and it really didn't make much of a difference as Wooster is still ranked ahead of Hope even with the Roanoke game included.
Just realize that it's pretty hard to accept the "we're human" excuse, when your school is the one that has had to suffer the consequences of it for several years in a row.
In the grand scheme of things it's not really suffering.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2008, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2008, 09:52:37 AM
Just realize that it's pretty hard to accept the "we're human" excuse, when your school is the one that has had to suffer the consequences of it for several years in a row.
In the grand scheme of things it's not really suffering.
In the grand scheme of things, most of this doesn't really matter - that's one of the nice things about sports, and these boards... it/they help us take a break from the grand scheme of things for a little while. That doesn't negate FDF's point - "we're human" is a valid excuse on occasion; when it becomes a regular catch-phrase, then it's morphed from an excuse for a mistake to a phrase enabling sloppy work. DIII athletes deserve better than the sloppy work we often see from the NCAA surrounding tournament issues.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2008, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2008, 09:52:37 AM
Just realize that it's pretty hard to accept the "we're human" excuse, when your school is the one that has had to suffer the consequences of it for several years in a row.
In the grand scheme of things it's not really suffering.
No, but are you willing to agree that Hope has had more than their share of these "mix-ups" and the associated frustration?
On a national scale, no. You're not the only school that has to deal with this sort of thing. That's kinda what I'm getting at. One game that goes back and forth a couple times over four years? Ehh ... not sure that means the "woe is us" attitude is warranted.
Sorry -- but you guys already hate me anyway. :)
It happens. It's not the worst thing the NCAA has done. Yeesh.
My question has always been... How much has it helped or hurt us?
In '05/'06 It didn't count in region (I don't think). And we beat Carthage... We were fortunate to get first round games at Hope for the NCAA, but then had to travel to Witt. Would that have been different if that game counted??? I don't remember how the region stacked up, but Witt may have had the edge anyway.
Last season it counted in region and we lost... We then have to travel for the first round of the NCAA. Again, would this have been different if the loss didn't count?
This season again, that victory could have had ramifications on how the tournament is put together... We'll never know!
That I think is the biggest bummer!
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2008, 04:59:57 PM
Sorry -- but you guys already hate me anyway. :)
Strong word choice Pat... but you're right... ;)
That @#$# lunar eclipse...
My two cents for what its worth is that when you have a dedicated, paid staff whose job it is to determine regional games, rankings, etc. then it is NOT acceptable to make errors again and again whether they affect the same teams year in and year out (carthage/hope) or affect a different group of teams every year. Last year they changed the number of Pool C bids in February! I mean that is beyond unacceptable in my book. Once again, these are paid staff at Indy. If this was a volunteer operation run by people in their free time I'd be far more forgiving.
The fact dedicated fans are catching these mistakes is a greater indictment on the NCAA. Yes, we've been fortunate that the mistakes were early and caught and corrected but since the final regional rankings our a secret and based on consistent mistakes I have minimal faith that the NCAA tourney brackets are correct across regions.
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 22, 2008, 06:47:12 PM
My two cents for what its worth is that when you have a dedicated, paid staff whose job it is to determine regional games, rankings, etc. then it is NOT acceptable to make errors again and again whether they affect the same teams year in and year out (carthage/hope) or affect a different group of teams every year.
Actually, I believe it's the schools' responsibility to put games into the system correctly in the first place and report their scores on a weekly basis. The coaches who are on the committee then do the checking. Many are not as well-versed in all the rules as we are.
Bottom line is, there is nobody "whose job it is to determine regional games." That's a responsibility many people share, some who are volunteers to the committee, some who are paid by the school and one who is paid by the NCAA to do a lot of things, not just make sure all 5,500 men's basketball games are properly input into the system.
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 22, 2008, 06:47:12 PMLast year they changed the number of Pool C bids in February! I mean that is beyond unacceptable in my book. Once again, these are paid staff at Indy. If this was a volunteer operation run by people in their free time I'd be far more forgiving.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the NCAA changed its staff in charge of Division III men's basketball. I've referenced the personnel change over and over.
Quote from: hope1 on February 22, 2008, 03:47:42 PM
now with capital losing wed night i think hope will jump wooster for 1st place in the region
Why would Capital losing cause Hope to jump Wooster? The logical assumption would be that Wooster would move to the top spot and Hope would slide in at #2...
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
Quote from: hope1 on February 22, 2008, 03:47:42 PM
now with capital losing wed night i think hope will jump wooster for 1st place in the region
Why would Capital losing cause Hope to jump Wooster? The logical assumption would be that Wooster would move to the top spot and Hope would slide in at #2...
I'm not certain Capital losing even moves Capital down more than #2, of course the best part is we'll never know. :-\
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2008, 07:00:28 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
Quote from: hope1 on February 22, 2008, 03:47:42 PM
now with capital losing wed night i think hope will jump wooster for 1st place in the region
Why would Capital losing cause Hope to jump Wooster? The logical assumption would be that Wooster would move to the top spot and Hope would slide in at #2...
I'm not certain Capital losing even moves Capital down more than #2, of course the best part is we'll never know. :-\
Yes we will. We still get a regional rankings report on the 27th. We'll see where teams are slotted after the completion of the regular season; we won't see where teams are slotted after the completion of conference tournaments.
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2008, 07:00:28 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 06:54:47 PM
Quote from: hope1 on February 22, 2008, 03:47:42 PM
now with capital losing wed night i think hope will jump wooster for 1st place in the region
Why would Capital losing cause Hope to jump Wooster? The logical assumption would be that Wooster would move to the top spot and Hope would slide in at #2...
I'm not certain Capital losing even moves Capital down more than #2, of course the best part is we'll never know. :-\
I was kind of thinking the same thing. Except I was thinking that Cap might not even lose their #1 ranking with the loss...
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2008, 09:52:37 AM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 22, 2008, 09:34:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2008, 11:52:34 PM
the committee didn't get the memo.
Seems to me they did get the memo as Carthage has never been denoted as a regional game this season which is as it should have been all along. As far as Roanoke is concerned, I would just chalk that up to an honest mistake or an oversight. Mistakes do happen. As Pat said, these guys are human after all. Nobody's perfect. The important thing is it happened on the 1st poll which and was corrected by the 2nd poll and it really didn't make much of a difference as Wooster is still ranked ahead of Hope even with the Roanoke game included.
Just realize that it's pretty hard to accept the "we're human" excuse, when your school is the one that has had to suffer the consequences of it for several years in a row.
FDF, come on down to the ASC boards! We can commiserate together! :D :D :D
I was planning on doing another poll, feel free to vote if interested.
sac, with playoffs approaching I really have lost track of schools unlikely to be involved. My top five is easy (1. Hope 2. Woo 3. Cap 4. Albion 5. Heidi), but beyond that would take some digging. Let me know if you really, really need another ballot!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2008, 03:38:10 PM
sac, with playoffs approaching I really have lost track of schools unlikely to be involved. My top five is easy (1. Hope 2. Woo 3. Cap 4. Albion 5. Heidi), but beyond that would take some digging. Let me know if you really, really need another ballot!
Nope its 6:30, and I only have 1 thats not mine, so I'm probably not going to do one.
So, I guess then my opinion is the one that counts! ;D
Nope these are the only opinions that count.........new poll
Great Lakes Region
1. Hope 21-3 15-2
2. Capital 21-4 20-4
3. Wooster 22-3 15-2
4. Heidelberg 20-5 18-4
5. Penn State-Behrend 21-4 19-3
6. Albion 18-5 14-3
They LOVE Capital.
Hmmm..'Berg for a "C" if they make it to the OAC final?
Seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2008, 03:31:57 PM
Hmmm..'Berg for a "C" if they make it to the OAC final?
It would be more interesting to see the poll if someone other than Cap were to beat Heidelberg in the OAC final...........then you'd have yourself a poll. I'd like see how they'd stack Cap, Heid then
Copied this over from the OWP numbers on the site: (Sorry if the table formatting didn't come through.)
In-region Reg. % OWP OOWP
Hope 15-2 .882 0.508 0.494
Capital 20-4 .833 0.528 0.524
Wooster 15-2 .882 0.484 0.490
Heidelberg 18-4 .818 0.519 0.521
Behrend 19-3 .864 0.466 0.492
Albion 14-3 .824 0.476 0.496
Wooster is getting punished for those low OWP/OOWP numbers:
Wooster leads in regional winning % by .049, but Capital leads in OWP by .044 and OOWP by .034.
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
Actually Hope's OWP is closer to Cap's than it is to Woo's, but we might as well be splitting hairs.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
Regional winning %
1. Hope .882
2. Cap .833
3. Woo .882
I don't know if its razor thin but they seem to be aplying the numbers rationally, unlike the other gender. I'm not sure I agree with Cap being ahead of Woo however.
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2008, 04:10:56 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
Regional winning %
1. Hope .882
2. Cap .833
3. Woo .882
I don't know if its razor thin but they seem to be aplying the numbers rationally, unlike the other gender. I'm not sure I agree with Cap being ahead of Woo however.
I never thought I'd say it but after looking at the women's GL numbers this rankings seems completely reasonable. At least you can look at all the numbers and understand why things shook out they way they have even if you might have personally weighed different measures more or less strongly.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
We might be splitting hairs...but at the same time, the OWP listing on this site says that Hope's .508 is good enough for 167th best among all D-III teams, while Wooster's .484 is 261st nationally. Capital's .528 OWP places them 95th best.
So it may be splitting hairs- and it may be razor-thin- but it's still wide enough for almost 100 teams to fit in-between, which feels more significant of a way to measure it than simply what I did above when I subtracted the two numbers.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2008, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 04:05:56 PM
Yeah, except Hope's OWP and OOWP are nearly as low as Woo's. My guess would be that the differences among 1, 2, and 3 were razor thin.
We might be splitting hairs...but at the same time, the OWP listing on this site says that Hope's .508 is good enough for 167th best among all D-III teams, while Wooster's .484 is 261st nationally. Capital's .528 OWP places them 95th best.
So it may be splitting hairs- and it may be razor-thin- but it's still wide enough for almost 100 teams to fit in-between, which feels more significant of a way to measure it than simply what I did above when I subtracted the two numbers.
Yes, but both Hope & Wooster would have to lose a game to be down to the same regional winning percentage as Capital.
The good news for Hope, Capital and Wooster is that I think all are safely Pool C locks unless the craziest week of Pool A upsets in history occurs.
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 27, 2008, 04:14:56 PM
I never thought I'd say it but after looking at the women's GL numbers this rankings seems completely reasonable. At least you can look at all the numbers and understand why things shook out they way they have even if you might have personally weighed different measures more or less strongly.
This is true but remember the rankings are based on more than just those numbers. These are also criteria:
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
From what I'm seeing though looking around the regions, OWP is being used as a trump card. I'm not even sure it measures anything, I see people calling it strength of schedule but its not, its just your opponents winning percentage.
OWP is a component of RPI, but its being used as a stand alone measurement and I'm not certain thats how it should be used.
Well, I was nervous about Wooster's opponents and their lack of winning percentage hurting Wooster in the poll last week and my nervousness proved to come to fruition... ::) I guess a loss is viewed better than wins over crappy teams in the eyes of the ranking committee... ???
At least Wabash and their .667 regional winning percentage came through with the upset over Kenyon and their .545 regional winning percentage. :P That should help Wooster somewhat.
I just have to wonder how many more Cap losses is it going to take for Wooster to jump them in the regional rankings??? ::)
So a question for the expert posters out there. If Hope men were to finish number 1 in the GL poll, and the Hope women were to finish number two. Under the assumption that there are no tournament upsets. Who would host the second weekend. Men or women?
i think the girls would
Quote from: Hopester on February 27, 2008, 09:37:08 PM
So a question for the expert posters out there. If Hope men were to finish number 1 in the GL poll, and the Hope women were to finish number two. Under the assumption that there are no tournament upsets. Who would host the second weekend. Men or women?
The men have priority for rounds 1 and 2 during even years.
I don't think the women will have a chance to even be in the running, we can scratch that.
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2008, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 27, 2008, 09:37:08 PM
So a question for the expert posters out there. If Hope men were to finish number 1 in the GL poll, and the Hope women were to finish number two. Under the assumption that there are no tournament upsets. Who would host the second weekend. Men or women?
The men have priority for rounds 1 and 2 during even years.
I don't think the women will have a chance to even be in the running, we can scratch that.
Yeah, with their terrible 1.000 winning percentage and all (no I'm not bitter about the women's ranking at all)
With Woo and Cap losing I assume we may host next week. Any guesses who we might see? Sac???
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on March 01, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
With Woo and Cap losing I assume we may host next week. Any guesses who we might see? Sac???
Yeah, I think that you'll probably see sac. :D
The hosting question was answered in the Around the Nation (http://"http://www.d3hoops.com/nation/08/feb08.htm") article on Feb. 8th.
Scroll down to the "Final Four" section near the bottom of the column and you will understand why the women will be traveling on the second weekend... but probably will be at home on the first.
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 02, 2008, 01:03:33 AM
The hosting question was answered in the Around the Nation (http://"http://www.d3hoops.com/nation/08/feb08.htm") article on Feb. 8th.
Scroll down to the "Final Four" section near the bottom of the column and you will understand why the women will be traveling on the second weekend... but probably will be at home on the first.
Men have priority for 1st weekend games in even years. 2008 is an even year. The men have priority for round 1 and 2 for hosting.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 02:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 02, 2008, 01:03:33 AM
The hosting question was answered in the Around the Nation (http://"http://www.d3hoops.com/nation/08/feb08.htm") article on Feb. 8th.
Scroll down to the "Final Four" section near the bottom of the column and you will understand why the women will be traveling on the second weekend... but probably will be at home on the first.
Men have priority for 1st weekend games in even years. 2008 is an even year. The men have priority for round 1 and 2 for hosting.
Quote from: NCAA Men's Basketball Chanpionship Handbook Page 7Institutions with both men's and women's teams in the championships and with
the opportunity to host four-team events for both genders will follow these hosting
guidelines:
| 3-game 1st/2nd Rd | Sectionals |
| Even Years | Men host | Women host |
| Odd Years | Women host | Men host |
Handbook (last update 2/18/08) available here. (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/index.html)
Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2008, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on March 01, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
With Woo and Cap losing I assume we may host next week. Any guesses who we might see? Sac???
Yeah, I think that you'll probably see sac. :D
:P :P :P ;)
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 02:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 02, 2008, 01:03:33 AM
The hosting question was answered in the Around the Nation (http://"http://www.d3hoops.com/nation/08/feb08.htm") article on Feb. 8th.
Scroll down to the "Final Four" section near the bottom of the column and you will understand why the women will be traveling on the second weekend... but probably will be at home on the first.
Men have priority for 1st weekend games in even years. 2008 is an even year. The men have priority for round 1 and 2 for hosting.
Quote from: NCAA Men's Basketball Chanpionship Handbook Page 7Institutions with both men's and women's teams in the championships and with
the opportunity to host four-team events for both genders will follow these hosting
guidelines:
| 3-game 1st/2nd Rd | Sectionals |
| Even Years | Men host | Women host |
| Odd Years | Women host | Men host |
Handbook (last update 2/18/08) available here. (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/index.html)
Uh-oh, a late-February update to the handbook. Never good.
FWIW, it said the same thing in the original October version that I downloaded back then and had saved on my computer. There have now been three updates, according to the title page. I don't know what changed in the updates.
I don't remember seeing this in the secondary criteria category, but I've probably missed it before
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during
the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may
adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee.
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 12:20:42 PM
FWIW, it said the same thing in the original October version that I downloaded back then and had saved on my computer. There have now been three updates, according to the title page. I don't know what changed in the updates.
Right -- I know that wording was in there. Was wondering what else changed.
Number of bids and breakdown remains the same.
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on March 02, 2008, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2008, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on March 01, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
With Woo and Cap losing I assume we may host next week. Any guesses who we might see? Sac???
Yeah, I think that you'll probably see sac. :D
:P :P :P ;)
I'm looking at Aurora, Chicago, Franklin as the most likely possibilities. I'm fairly certain that the 4 Ohio reps will be paired together (OWU, Heidelberg, Wooster, Capital). However if they do break them apart it would seem logical to send either OWU or Heidelberg to Holland.
There's still a slim chance for Albion and Wheaton but unlikely.......either one of those would probably come to Holland.
I'm kind of hopeing that the committee takes the extra few hours and moves teams around a little more. So there might be a surpise out there for us.
Looking at it only quickly this morning, I think Hope's pretty close to being one of the top 5 teams nationally criteria wise, which might put them in line for a bye. I'm not counting on that but they seem to be up in that rare air. Only a couple of those will go to solve geography problems.
I'm already looking forward to the selection and pairings to see what they do.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 02:00:08 PM
I'm looking at Aurora, Chicago, Franklin as the most likely possibilities. I'm fairly certain that the 4 Ohio reps will be paired together (OWU, Heidelberg, Wooster, Capital). However if they do break them apart it would seem logical to send either OWU or Heidelberg to Holland.
I don't see it that way at all. Capital is the only Ohio team in a reasonable position to host, and if they do, that's where you'll find OWU as well. Wooster will be shipped out of state somewhere, perhaps to Centre. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find Heidelberg in Holland. I would, however, be very surprised to find a regional with two OAC
and two NCAC teams.
I agree with David. It think the four Ohio schools will be split into two locations, one from the OAC and NCAC each. If I had to guess Wooster would be with Heidelberg and OWU with Capital. I think Capital hosts, (possible picking up Bethany) and Wooster/'Berg get shipped to Centre.
Ya know looking at things, its not totally inconceivable that Heidelberg would get the #2 ranking (fairness would be another issue) But Heid now holds 2 wins over Capital, and an even in-region record loss wise and similar OWP and OOWP.
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 02:30:42 PM
Capital is the only Ohio team in a reasonable position to host...
I don't get why you woud think that Cap is the only Ohio team in a resonable position to host. After all, they have lost 2 of 3 to Heide. For that reason alone, I wouldn't consider Cap in a position to host.
I'm holding out hope that Wooster gets to stay in the Columbus area so that I can make the trip to see them in the tournament. If the Scots are shipped up to Holland or down south to Centre (which my gut tells me they will be if they get in), the distance would be too far so I would be left with having to tune in to Mike B on the radio. One plus about the later scenarios is at least if I'd be staying home I can calm my nerves with some quality Great Lakes Brewing Co. beverages during the game... ;D :P ;)
Well its never to early to be thinking regional rankings. I'm not going to rank the teams, but I'll list them by in-region winning %.
1. Calvin 3-0
2. Capital 11-1
3. Carnegie-Mellon 8-1
4. Hope 3-1
5. Wooster 8-3
5. Ohio Northern 8-3
7. John Carroll 7-3
8. Wilmington 9-4
9. Hiram 8-4
9. Wittenberg 8-4
11. Wash & Jeff 8-5
12. Kenyon 6-4
13. Bethany 5-4
14. Ohio Wesleyan 6-5
15. Wabash 6-5
16. Thomas More 6-6
17. Grove City 5-5
I think we all agree that as a whole the Region is a bit down, and maybe missing a powerhouse team like we've had in the last several years. Carnegie-Mellon and Capital are the most likely candidates to step into that light. I'm unsure about CM because I think they'll run into a number of at least equal if not better teams in the UAA. I think the likely hood of them reaching 3, 4 or 5 in-region losses is pretty high. Higher than them staying at 1 at least.
The OAC seems to have settled on 3 or 4 strong contenders, with John Carroll kind of coming out of nowhere in recent weeks. The league is notorious for beating each other up, so despite Cap going 16-2 last year, it doesn't seem probable that someone comes out with fewer than 3 in-region losses. Its possible but doesn't seem likely.
Which leaves the MIAA........Either Hope or Calvin are probably (and I say probably because I'm not convinced yet) going to emerge from the MIAA with a pretty good record. Which means that at the end of the season, the GL region could very well have a top seeded team that has played either no out of conference in-region games (Calvin) or one (Hope)...........score one for rebellion and mischief?
I'll try to remember to update this as the weeks pass. I'm not going to calculate all that owp and oowp mess untill its very necessary............but suffice it to say I know that in the league I follow (MIAA) the OWP for Calvin is just about guaranteed to be under .500, possible conference tournament matchup with Hope excluded........for Hope the better Wheaton does the better Hope's chances of landing a decent OWP (with one out of conference in-region game), that should cheese some people off.
Long way off, but this is going to be interesting to watch.
We'll have OWP and OOWP on the site again, starting pretty soon, so you could hold off on the calculations. We'll cover it.
Updated in-region records through Sunday's games.
1. Calvin 4-0
2. Capital 12-1
3. Carnegie Mellon 8-1
4. Wooster 9-3
5. Ohio Northern 9-3
6. John Carroll 8-3
6. Penn St.- Behrend 8-3
8. Hiram 9-4
9. Kenyon 8-4
10. Wilmington 9-5
10. Wash & Jeff 9-5
12. Wittenberg 8-5
13. Hope 3-2
14. Ohio Wesleyan 7-5
15. Frostburg St. 8-6
16. Bethany 5-5
Big drop this week for Hope obviously, I think this is just a product of their small numbers of games. Two wins this week and they'd be back among the top 8.
I dropped Thomas More and Grove City because they now have 6 in-region losses, I'll count them again when/if they get nearer to .550
Pretty lite week in important games, Carnegie has 3 in-region games this week, a really big one with Washington U next Sunday.
Games to watch
Wed.
Wash & Jeff @ Bethany
Ohio Wes. @ Wittenberg
Saturday
Wittenberg @ Kenyon
Sunday
Washington U @ Carnegie-Mellon
I worked off last weeks list, so if I missed any teams let me know I didn't go back and look to see if anyone crossed over the .500 mark.
**EDITED** to include AMCC schools Frostburg St and PS-Behrend
I think Kenyon is 8-4:
Wash&Jeff (L)
Albion (W)
Marietta (W)
Wabash (W)
OWU (L)
K'zoo (W)
Capital (L)
Case (W)
Wooster (L)
Earlham (W)
Denison (W)
Allegheny (W)
....and so they are, thanks DC.
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2009, 10:04:36 PM
Updated in-region records through Sunday's games.
1. Calvin 4-0
Sac: Calvin did beat Geneva, a school I believe has now completed its move from NAIA to D3. Wouldn't that make the Knights 5-0 in-region?
Quote from: oldknight on January 19, 2009, 02:17:15 PM
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2009, 10:04:36 PM
Updated in-region records through Sunday's games.
1. Calvin 4-0
Sac: Calvin did beat Geneva, a school I believe has now completed its move from NAIA to D3. Wouldn't that make the Knights 5-0 in-region?
Geneva is a year two provisional, year 3 begin to count for in-region games.
Their schedule has no games listed as in-region
http://www.d3hoops.com/school/GNVA/mens/2009
Great lakes ratings according to pabegg's RPI:
GL 62 01 0.6252 0.4866 0.5278 Calvin 005 A w C 4-0 9-5
GL 64 02 0.6325 0.5420 0.5231 Capital 006 A w C 12-1 14-1
GL 90 03 0.6725 0.6271 0.5608 Carnegie Mellon 010 C 2 7-1 11-2
GL 64 04 0.6014 0.5634 0.5286 John Carroll 041 C 18 9-3 11-4
GL 64 05 0.5947 0.5569 0.5149 Ohio Northern 044 C 20 9-3 11-4
GL 63 06 0.5837 0.5387 0.5075 Wooster 048 A second 9-3 10-5
GL 62 07 0.6261 0.7100 0.4842 Hope 075 3-2 10-5
GL 61 08 0.5444 0.4883 0.4739 Penn State-Behrend 088 A 8-3 9-5
GL 63 09 0.5510 0.4991 0.5133 Hiram 090 9-4 10-5
Updated through Wed, Jan 21 games
1. Capital 13-1
2. Carnegie Mellon 9-1
3. Calvin 4-1
4. Wooster 10-3
5. Ohio Northern 10-3
6. John Carroll 8-3
7. Hiram 10-4
8. Kenyon 9-4
9. Penn St. Behrend 8-4
9. Hope 4-2
9. Olivet 4-2
12. Wilmington 9-5
13. Ohio Wesleyan 8-5
14. Wash & Jeff 9-6
15. Wittenberg 8-6
16. Frostburg St. 9-7
17. Bethany 6-5
Some movement last night, most notably a new #1 with Calvin losing to Olivet. I also moved Olivet in only because I was familar with them crossing into 'rankable' territory so if I've missed someone its not intentional.
Our friends from the AMCC took a hit as both PSU-Behrend and Frostburg lost to start the week, then in the PrAC Bethany beat Wash & Jeff.
I'll redo the list fresh after the weekend games. We're getting to the point where losses are difficult to recover from. Witt is pretty much a must win
Some questions about Carnegie Mellon should be answered Sunday.
Saturday
Wittenberg @ Kenyon
Sunday
Washington U @ Carnegie-Mellon
If anyone is interested in watching CMU play tomorrow, they host WashU at noon and the game will be webcast:
http://www.cmu.edu/athletics/video/webcast.html
Updated through Sunday's games.
1. Capital 14-1
2. Carnegie Mellon 12-2
3. Calvin 5-1
4. Wooster 11-3
5. John Carroll 9-3
6. PSU-Behrend 11-4
6. Hiram 11-4
7. Hope 5-2
7. Ohio Northern 10-4
10. Wilmington 10-5
11. Kenyon 9-5
12. Ohio Wesleyan 8-5
13. Wash & Jeff 9-6
-------------------------------
14. Wittenberg 7-5
15. Olivet 4-3
16. Grove City 6-5
17. Wabash 7-6
18. Thomas More 8-7
19. Bethany 6-6
Despite today's loss to Washington, Carnegie Mellon remains in 2nd. Ohio Northern and Kenyon suffered damaging losses on Saturday. Damaging to 'Pool C' chances anyway, ONU lost to Marietta, Kenyon to Wittenberg. I had Witt's IRR listed incorrectly last week, 7-5 is now correct.
Big week in the OAC as Capital faces #2 and #3 in the standings Wilmington and JCU. Two wins could solidify at least a 'C' bid already (?)
This is the final week before the first regional ranking I think (confirm ?), the results from this weeks two OAC clashes will go a long way towards who gets ranked in the #5 and #6 slots. I think 1-4 look pretty certain to be 1-4 on the 'standings'.
By the way the line under #13 is just the cutoff for a winning percentage of .600.
Key games this week
Jan 28.
Wabash at Wittenberg
Kenyon at Hiram
Wilmington at Capital
Jan 30
Transylvania at Wittenberg
Jan 31
Wooster at Ohio Wesleyan
Capital at John Carroll
Olivet at Hope
Grove City at Wash & Jeff
If I missed anything let me know.
Since CMU's next four games are all Case and Emory, they should be sittin' pretty!
Pabegg calculates all the OWP, OOWP in the Pool C board. You can kind of see where teams sit right now.
QuoteGL 64 01 02 0.6281 0.5303 0.5185 Capital 004 A w C 14-1 16-1
GL 90 02 03 0.6407 0.6031 0.5383 Carnegie Mellon 017 C 3 9-2 13-3
GL 62 03 01 0.5894 0.5148 0.4945 Calvin 031 A w C 5-1 10-6
GL 64 04 04 0.5860 0.5215 0.5318 John Carroll 048 C 21 10-3 12-4
GL 62 05 07 0.5883 0.5722 0.4944 Hope 057 C 28 5-2 12-5
GL 63 06 06 0.5594 0.4722 0.5077 Wooster 061 A third 11-3 12-5
GL 64 07 05 0.5772 0.5373 0.5200 Ohio Northern 064 C 33 10-4 12-5
GL 63 08 09 0.5418 0.4693 0.4954 Hiram 080 11-4 12-5
GL 61 09 08 0.5391 0.4814 0.4791 Penn State-Behrend 084 A 10-4 11-6
CMU playing in the UAA is going to keep them in the 'C' picture all year. If they can avoid an upset, they should be sitting pretty.
The rest of the GL looks like it will have a tough time getting a 'C'. Cap and Calvin look ok at this point should they lose their conference tournaments.
Updated through Thursday's games.
1. Capital 15-1
2t Carnegie Mellon 12-2
2t Calvin 6-1
4. Wooster 12-3
5. John Carroll 10-3
6t PSU-Behrend 12-4
6t Hiram 12-4
6t Hope 6-2
9. Ohio Northern 11-4
10. Ohio Wesleyan 9-5
11t Wilmington 10-6
11t Olivet 5-3
13. Wittenberg 8-5
14. Kenyon 9-6
15. Wash & Jeff 9-6
-------------------------------
16. Thomas More 9-7
17. Bethany 7-6
18. Grove City 6-6
19. Wabash 7-7
A little bit of movement which seems to have created a bunch of ties, I'm willing to say teams with 3 current in-region losses are still in the 'C' game but they can't afford a slip up. 4 current losses and above and its pretty unlikely.
Big games in the OAC and MIAA this weekend.
Jan 31
Wooster at Ohio Wesleyan
Capital at John Carroll
Olivet at Hope
Grove City at Wash & Jeff
Updated through Thursday's games.
1. Capital 15-2
2. Calvin 7-1
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-3
4. John Carroll 11-3
5. Hope 7-2
6t PSU-Behrend 13-4
6t Hiram 13-4
8t Ohio Northern 12-4
8t Wooster 12-4
10. Ohio Wesleyan 10-5
11. Wilmington 11-6
12t Kenyon 10-6
12t Wash & Jeff 10-6
-------------------------------
14. Thomas More 10-7
15. Wittenberg 8-6
16. Olivet 5-4
17t Bethany 7-6
17t Albion 7-6
Big upset today as Case Reserve beat Carnegie Mellon 75-67, CMU's season will be decided in the final 2 weeks with games vs Brandeis and NYU at home, followed by a tough road swing with Rochester, WashU and Chicago to finish. CMU's margin for error just got a lot smaller.
* Wooster was the big loser this week dropping 4 places
* John Carroll solidified itself in the 'C' category and have now tied for the OAC lead with Capital
* The big winners were Hope and Calvin who closed some gaps, I don't like either's Pool C chances but for seeding they're starting to look better and better. There will be some losses among the top 6 coming.
* Really big week for Hiram coming up, Wooster and OWU.
* First ranking comes out this week, if I had to guess I think it will be, with 5&6 interchangeable.
1. Capital
2. Calvin
3. Carnegie Mellon
4. John Carroll
5. PSU-Behrend
6. Hiram
Key games this week
Wednesday
Wooster at Hiram
Hope at Albion
Saturday
Ohio Wesleyan at Hiram
Ohio Northern at John Carroll
PSU-Behrend at PSU-Altoona (2nd place AMCC)
Pabegg's weekly update on the Pool A and C races.
Quote
GL 64 01 01 0.6291 0.5579 0.5181 Capital 009 A w C 15-2 17-2
GL 64 02 04 0.6038 0.5464 0.5225 John Carroll 024 C 5 12-3 14-4
GL 62 03 05 0.5979 0.5532 0.5077 Hope 034 C 12 7-2 14-5
GL 90 04 02 0.5973 0.5439 0.5321 Carnegie Mellon 041 C 17 10-3 14-4
GL 62 05 03 0.5692 0.4472 0.5075 Calvin 043 A w C 7-1 12-6
GL 64 06 07 0.5742 0.5108 0.5254 Ohio Northern 053 C 25 12-4 14-5
GL 63 07 08 0.5637 0.4934 0.5033 Hiram 061 C 32 13-4 14-5
GL 63 08 06 0.5605 0.4955 0.5011 Wooster 062 A third 12-4 13-6
GL 61 09 09 0.5425 0.4663 0.4873 Penn State-Behrend 074 A 12-4 13-6
......and a brief comment about Hope/Calvin
QuoteThe statistical model shows Calvin as the "better" team while the NCAA prediction model shows Hope as the higher ranked team, so I pick Calvin to win the conference and Hope to compete favorably for Pool C.
This might be true but it likely that at least 2 more losses will be spread between the two, one in the regular season, and to whichever opponent bounces them from the tournament.
Hope's #'s will only look good if Wheaton continues to win. Calvin's OWP isn't likely to get above .500. With half as many in-region games as most other great lakes teams, 3 losses is really like 6...........and 6 is really on the bubble.
Interesting stuff none the less.
I would say other teams play closer to 1.5 times the number of in-region games (25ish games as compared to 16ish). Making 3 loses more like 4.5 not 6.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
I would say other teams play closer to 1.5 times the number of in-region games (25ish games as compared to 16ish). Making 3 loses more like 4.5 not 6.
I wasn't being specific, but 3 losses with the number of in-region games Hope/Calvin will have (18 and 17 if they make MIAA Finals) will be compared against teams with between 23-26. (I'm only using Calvin as an example because they'll have the fewest # of of in-region games in the Pool C conversation.)
Take Capital.......if they make the OAC Championship game they'll have 26 in-region games. If Calvin were to finish 14-3, thats a winning % of .823, thats 21.4 wins on a 26 game slate...........or slightly better than 21-5, slightly worse than 22-4.
Take John Carroll......if they make the OAC Championship game they'll have 24 in-region games. If Calvin were to finish 14-3, thats a winning % of .823, thats 19.7 wins on a 24 game slate...........or slightly better than 19-5, slightly worse than 20-4
Carnegie-Mellon will only have 23 in-region games, doing the same math.........18.9 wins, or slightly better than 18-5, slightly worse than 19-4
So yeah, roughly 4.5/3 is a 1.5 ratio......or every loss is equivalent of 1.5 losses.
3 losses for either Hope/Calvin is in the ballpark for a 'C', I think 4 would be pushing the envelope too much. Neither gets a 'C' if they don't make the MIAA Finals.
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2009, 04:23:58 PM
3 losses for either Hope/Calvin is in the ballpark for a 'C', I think 4 would be pushing the envelope too much. Neither gets a 'C' if they don't make the MIAA Finals.
The scenario in my mind that seems to most likely allow for Calvin and Hope to both receive bids is for Calvin to win the second regular season match-up and then for Hope to win the conference tournament. I think Calvin has a really tough time getting in if they lose to Hope then don't win the tournament.
The other factor will be upsets in other conference tournaments. It looks a lot better if Capital is going in as a Pool A than as a Pool C.
Quote from: ziggy on February 02, 2009, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2009, 04:23:58 PM
3 losses for either Hope/Calvin is in the ballpark for a 'C', I think 4 would be pushing the envelope too much. Neither gets a 'C' if they don't make the MIAA Finals.
The scenario in my mind that seems to most likely allow for Calvin and Hope to both receive bids is for Calvin to win the second regular season match-up and then for Hope to win the conference tournament. I think Calvin has a really tough time getting in if they lose to Hope then don't win the tournament.
The other factor will be upsets in other conference tournaments. It looks a lot better if Capital is going in as a Pool A than as a Pool C.
Interesting, I take the opposite view (I think) and only because of Calvin's OWP number which I don't think will get above .500. I wouldn't want to be sitting on 3 losses and have an OWP of around .490. Calvin's best option would be to win the tournament. Hope might skate by but.........
I only like Hope as a C if Wheaton continues to win. I don't like eithers chances with 4 losses.
I tend to agree with ziggy. A 2 loss Calvin team may be more likely to get the Pool C bid than a 3 loss Hope team. sac is correct that Hope stands a far greater chance at getting in with 3 loses than Calvin does (with 3 loses).
ziggy's scenario: Calvin15-2 in region (Pool C), Hope 15-3 (Pool A)
sac's scenario: Calvin 15-2 in region (Pool A), Hope 15-3 (Pool C)
Calvin may have a hard time getting in with 3 loses. Hope's RPI could (should?) be good enough to get in with 3 loses.
Are the first set of regional rankings due out today or next week?
Today, supposedly.
Where will they be posted?
D3hoops.com, as soon as they're available.
You can find regional rankings at:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-4-09
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 17-2 15-2
2. Carnegie Mellon 14-4 10-3
3. John Carroll 14-4 12-3
4. Calvin 12-6 7-1
5. Hope 14-5 7-2
6. Ohio Northern 14-5 12-4
I think this is the first time the NCAC has never had a team ranked, at least as long as I can recall these polls.
I haven't looked at all the criteria (wins vs ranked teams, win vs teams on the Tuesday of a full moon etc.) but I suspect Calvin is #4 based on their OWP which is under .500. Their regional Win % is better than both Carnegie and John Carroll.
Hiram and PSU-Behrend both have low OWP's. IF the GL could rank 8 teams like everyone else I else I think they'd be there.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
Hiram and PSU-Behrend both have low OWP's. IF the GL could rank 8 teams like everyone else I else I think they'd be there.
Is the number of teams ranked based off of the number of teams in each region or is this just quirky and odd like all things NCAA?
Based on # of teams in each region, the GL is the 3rd smallest of the eight regions. The Northeast will rank 10 teams. I dont' recall now but I think there's another formula involved.
It is based on the number of teams in each region, yes.
Updated from yesterday's rankings:
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 18-2 16-2 (win)
2. Carnegie Mellon 14-4 10-3 (DNP)
3. John Carroll 15-4 13-3 (win)
4. Calvin 13-6 8-1 (win)
5. Hope 14-6 7-3 (loss)
6. Ohio Northern 15-5 13-4 (win)
Items to note:
-The OAC teams have at least four losses coming through the end of the season: Ohio Northern still plays Capital and John Carroll and two teams will lose in the conference tournament. John Carroll and Capital have the easier schedule and the inside track on a tournament berth.
-Hope probably took a big Pool C hit with their loss at Albion. A loss at Calvin next Wednesday means they will need the AQ. I think the MIAA's best chance at two bids comes from Hope losing at Calvin next week then winning the conference tournament. That scenario probably gives the MIAA its best chance at a Pool C.
-It is critical that Calvin keeps the regional record up because of a weak OWP. While the low number of in region games means that each loss is magnified, the same must be said for each win. 2 more losses gives them a 14-3 record in region (assuming they make the MIAA final); putting them on par with a 20-5 team.
Updated through Wednesday's games.
1t Capital 16-2
1t Calvin 8-1
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-3
4. John Carroll 12-3
5. PSU-Behrend 14-4
6t Ohio Northern 13-4
6t Wooster 13-4
8. Hiram 13-5
9. Hope 7-3
-----------------------------------
10. Ohio Wesleyan 11-5
11. Wilmington 12-6
12t Kenyon 11-6
12t Wash & Jeff 11-6
14. Thomas More 11-7
15. Wittenberg 9-6
16. Olivet 6-4
-------------------------------
17t Bethany 8-6
17t Albion 8-6
** The first line is the .700 win % cutoff, the second is .600 win %
** Big loss last night for Hope, margin for error the rest of way is rail thin. 1 more loss before the MIAA tournament puts them squarly on the bubble. Their best possible in-region record with still being a Pool C candidate is 14-4 or .778, 13-5 is .722, 12-6 is .667. (.708 made the tournament last year)
** Hiram v Ohio Wesleyan is for all purposes a Pool C elimination game. Loser can probably only make the tournament by winning the AQ.
** PSU-Altoona lost last night which give PSU-B a 1 game lead in the AMCC
Key games this weekend
Saturday
Ohio Wesleyan at Hiram
Ohio Northern at John Carroll
PSU-Behrend at PSU-Altoona (2nd place AMCC)
If you're a fan of D3, Wednesday's your night
Wheaton at Elmhurst.......currently tied atop CCIW
Hope at Calvin..........Calvin one game lead over Hope
Transylvania at Franklin.........currently tied atop HCAC
Platteville at Whitewater........both in top 10, chasing Stevens Point in WIAC
Wittenberg at Ohio Wesleyan.......OWU tied for NCAC lead
not a bad lineup.
Start with the real rankings........
Great Lakes Region
1. Capital 18-3 16-3 (win, loss)
2. Carnegie Mellon 16-4 12-3 (win, win)
3. John Carroll 16-4 14-3 (win, win)
4. Calvin 14-6 9-1 (win, win)
5. Hope 15-6 8-3 (loss, win)
6. Ohio Northern 15-6 13-5 (win, loss)
**I suspect Wooster moves into the rankings next week, with ONU's loss Hope might stick around at number 6, maybe Ohio Wesleyan takes that spot, maybe PS-Behrend.
Updated through the weekend games.
1. Calvin 9-1
2. Capital 16-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 15-3
4. John Carroll 13-3
-------------------------------
5. PSU-Behrend 15-4
6. Wooster 14-4
7. Hope 8-3
8. Ohio Northern 13-5
9. Ohio Wesleyan 12-5
-----------------------------------
10. Hiram 13-6
11t Kenyon 12-6
11t Wash & Jeff 12-6
13t. Wilmington 12-7
13t. Thomas More 12-7
15. Wittenberg 10-6
16t Bethany 9-6
16t Albion 9-6
-------------------------------
18. Olivet 6-5
** The first line is the .800, the second line is the .700 win % cutoff, the third is .600 win %..........with just 4 weeks to go, I think if you're under the .700 line the pool C chances are pretty slim, all those teams need wins to get above .700.
** Calvin now has the best in-region record again, will be interesting to see if that affects the new poll. Crucial game with Hope for MIAA and C purposes, a win might lock them into a C spot if they take care of business. I'm not sure Capital will fall from the top spot.
Key games this weekend
Wed Feb 11.
Wash & Jeff @ Thomas More (1st and 2nd in PrAC)
PS- Behrend @ Medaille (1st v 2nd in AMCC)
Wittenberg @ Ohio Wesleyan
Ohio Northern @ Wilmington
Hope @ Calvin
Sat Feb 14
Wooster @ Wittenberg
Capital @ Ohio Northern
Calvin @ Olivet
From the Pool C board:
Quote from: pabegg on February 09, 2009, 12:35:13 PM
This week's update:
Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI OWP OOWP School Natl Status Reg Overall
GL 64 01 01 0.6177 0.5578 0.5132 Capital 016 A w C 16-3 18-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6135 0.5545 0.5214 John Carroll 019 C 4 14-3 16-4
GL 90 03 04 0.5940 0.5348 0.5022 Carnegie Mellon 032 C 9 12-3 16-4
GL 62 04 05 0.5645 0.5197 0.5367 Calvin 038 A w C 9-1 14-6
GL 63 05 08 0.5783 0.4307 0.4968 Wooster 046 A second 14-4 15-6
GL 63 06 nr 0.5773 0.5154 0.5218 Ohio Wesleyan 055 C 24 13-5 14-6
GL 62 07 03 0.5748 0.5202 0.5026 Hope 056 C 25 8-3 15-6
GL 64 08 06 0.5687 0.5157 0.5041 Ohio Northern 062 C 31 13-5 15-6
GL 61 09 09 0.5419 0.4526 0.4845 Penn State-Behrend 068 A third 14-4 15-6
Calvin's OWP is above .500 now.
I don't know how Calvin's OWP could have jumped that high so soon. Every number I have crunched has seemed that they need to get lucky in the conference tournament matchups to get to 0.500.
I can't figure out pabegg's RPI calculation either. The standard in-region calculation (0.25*W%+0.5*OWP+0.25*OOWP) lines with pabegg's rpi for Capital, John Carroll, and Penn State-Behrend, but Calvin, Hope, and Carnegie Mellon show some deviation.
According to his OWP and OOWP #s, Calvin's RPI should be 0.619. Even if you drop their OWP from his listed 0.5197 to 0.4197 thier RPI comes out to 0.569. pabegg lists Calvin's RPI as 0.5645
Am I calculating wrong or is something off on his sheet? I PMed him to try to get some info.
I raised a brow when I saw the OWP that doesn't make sense to me. Albion and Olivet have both come north of the .500 mark in recent games, combined with Hope that could be enough I suppose.
I don't think pabegg uses the standard RPI calculation they use for D1.
It still won't get above 0.500 though. Albion and Olivet's W's have all come at the expense of other MIAA teams getting L's. Each week Calvin's OWP would approach 0.500 but would never be able to pass it.
I guess I am not quite sure if each team's WP is averaged or if total W's and loses are used. For example, if Calvin beat Team A (5-0 in region) and also beat Team B (1-1) in region, would Calvin's OWP be 0.75 or 0.857?
The other seven teams all played in-region games outside the conference, thats where the differences would lie.
This is what I had for in-region records before conference play.
Adrian 1-3
Albion 2-3
Alma 2-3
Calvin 0-0
Hope 0-1
Kzoo 2-5
Olivet 1-0
Trine 2-3
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2009, 01:33:23 PM
It still won't get above 0.500 though. Albion and Olivet's W's have all come at the expense of other MIAA teams getting L's. Each week Calvin's OWP would approach 0.500 but would never be able to pass it.
I guess I am not quite sure if each team's WP is averaged or if total W's and loses are used. For example, if Calvin beat Team A (5-0 in region) and also beat Team B (1-1) in region, would Calvin's OWP be 0.75 or 0.857?
Total wins and losses = new average
I come up with .4437 for Calvin's OWP
Cleary we're doing something wrong, I come up with .4841 for Hope
Quote from: sac on February 09, 2009, 01:47:22 PM
I come up with .4437 for Calvin's OWP
Quote from: sac on February 09, 2009, 01:55:13 PM
Cleary we're doing something wrong, I come up with .4841 for Hope
They both will jump up after Wed. What you have for Calvin's looks right to me.
QuoteGL 64 01 01 0.6177 0.5578 0.5132 Capital 016 A w C 16-3 18-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6135 0.5545 0.5214 John Carroll 019 C 4 14-3 16-4
GL 90 03 04 0.5940 0.5197 0.5367 Carnegie Mellon 032 C 9 12-3 16-4
GL 62 04 05 0.5645 0.4307 0.4968 Calvin 038 A w C 9-1 14-6
GL 63 05 08 0.5783 0.5157 0.5041 Wooster 046 A second 14-4 15-6
GL 63 06 nr 0.5773 0.5381 0.5109 Ohio Wesleyan 055 C 24 13-5 14-6
GL 62 07 03 0.5748 0.5348 0.5022 Hope 056 C 25 8-3 15-6
GL 64 08 06 0.5687 0.5154 0.5218 Ohio Northern 062 C 31 13-5 15-6
GL 61 09 09 0.5419 0.4526 0.4845 Penn State-Behrend 068 A third 14-4 15-6
Pabegg updated his chart, Calvin's OWP is correct now, still not sure about Hope's.
Quote from: sac on February 09, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
QuoteGL 64 01 01 0.6177 0.5578 0.5132 Capital 016 A w C 16-3 18-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6135 0.5545 0.5214 John Carroll 019 C 4 14-3 16-4
GL 90 03 04 0.5940 0.5197 0.5367 Carnegie Mellon 032 C 9 12-3 16-4
GL 62 04 05 0.5645 0.4307 0.4968 Calvin 038 A w C 9-1 14-6
GL 63 05 08 0.5783 0.5157 0.5041 Wooster 046 A second 14-4 15-6
GL 63 06 nr 0.5773 0.5381 0.5109 Ohio Wesleyan 055 C 24 13-5 14-6
GL 62 07 03 0.5748 0.5348 0.5022 Hope 056 C 25 8-3 15-6
GL 64 08 06 0.5687 0.5154 0.5218 Ohio Northern 062 C 31 13-5 15-6
GL 61 09 09 0.5419 0.4526 0.4845 Penn State-Behrend 068 A third 14-4 15-6
Pabegg updated his chart, Calvin's OWP is correct now, still not sure about Hope's.
Good work guys, the numbers didn't make sense. Especially considering Calvin has already gone a second time through the bottom of the league, and still have Hope and Albion to come.
pabegg tells me Hope's number is now correct, I still differ with him on that.
Here's the reply I got from pabegg that explains the OWP problems much better.......either I had forgotten or didn't remember.........probably both :P
QuoteOWP is the average of the opponents' winning percentage.
Calvin 8/9
Albion 8/13
Wheaton (Ill.) 13/16
Kalamazoo 5/15
Olivet 6/9
Kalamazoo 5/15
Albion 8/13
Alma 5/14
Adrian 4/13
Trine 4/14
Olivet 6/9
You've got to take the percentages from each of those lines and average them.
In order to get the numbers above, you've got to take out the Hope games. For example, Olivet is 6-5 but 6-3 in games not including Hope.
Great Lakes Region Rankings from 2/11/09
1. Capital 18-3, 16-3 (won, 17-3)
2. Carnegie Mellon 16-4, 12-3
3. John Carroll 16-4, 14-3 (won, 15-3)
4. Calvin 14-6, 9-1 (won, 10-1)
5. Wooster 15-6, 14-4 (won, 15-4)
6. Ohio Northern 15-6, 13-5 (won, 14-5)
Calvin's WP is too high to remain at #4 for very much longer even if the 3 above them keep winning. The OWP for the Knights has been a problem but adding .800 Hope to the list will help that for the next set of rankings. IMO only the top 4 have a shot at a Pool C bid. Wooster and ONU need to win the AQ to get in.
Updated through the weekend games.
1. Calvin 10-1
2. Capital 17-3
3. John Carroll 14-3
4. Carnegie Mellon 12-3
-------------------------------
5. Wooster 15-4
6. PSU-Behrend 15-5
7. Ohio Northern 14-5
8. Ohio Wesleyan 13-5
-----------------------------------
9. Hope 8-4
10t. Hiram 13-7
12t Kenyon 12-7
12t Wash & Jeff 12-7
10t. Thomas More 13-7
15. Wittenberg 10-7
14t Bethany 10-6
14t Albion 10-6
16. Wilmington 12-8
-------------------------------
18. Olivet 6-6
*** Big day yesterday in the GL Region, quite a few teams who still had slim 'C' chances are all but officially eliminated, all teams from #10 on down cannot get above a .700 win %. and still be a 'C' candidate.
*** Hope would be eliminated with 1 more regular season loss, all teams above them can suffer at least 1 more regular season loss and still stay above the magical .700 mark.
*** PS-Behrend lost yesterday and their 'C' chances are probably pretty slim to begin with, I might put them right on the bubble with Hope.
Key games this weekend
Sat Feb 14
Wooster @ Wittenberg
Capital @ Ohio Northern
Calvin @ Olivet
sac,
I have Mellon at 12-3 in region. I also think you should add another line for teams 0.900 and above. ;D
yep on Carnegie
Brandeis 66 Carnegie Mellon 63
Thats a big loss for CMU, they still have some tough games to go.
Sun NYU
2-20 @Washington
2-22 @ Chicago
2-28 @ Rochester
CMU needs to win 2 of those to get to .700, probably need 3 to be in good position for a Pool C bid.
Great Lakes Region Rankings from 2/11/09 Updates through Sunday
1. Capital 18-3, 16-3 (won, won, 18-3)
2. Carnegie Mellon 16-4, 12-3 (lost, won, 13-4)
3. John Carroll 16-4, 14-3 (won, won, 16-3)
4. Calvin 14-6, 9-1 (won, won 11-1)
5. Wooster 15-6, 14-4 (won, won, 16-4)
6. Ohio Northern 15-6, 13-5 (won, lost, 14-6)
Wooster probably stays at #5 and Ohio Wesleyan could see that #6 spot. I'll peg JCU for #2 and Calvin for #3 but those two teams are probably very close. Carnegie Mellon probably falls to #4, staying north of Wooster in the rankings. Capital stays strong in the top spot.
Updated through the weekend games.
1. Calvin 11-1
2. Capital 18-3
3. John Carroll 15-3
4. Carnegie Mellon 13-4
5. Wooster 16-4
-------------------------------
6t. PSU-Behrend 14-5
6t.. Ohio Wesleyan 14-5
7. Ohio Northern 14-6
-----------------------------------
9. Hope 9-4
*** Calvin, Capital and John Carroll have clinched win% of over 70%
This weeks games
none: There are no more games pairing these 9 schools against each other.
Sat: Carnegie Mellon @ Washinton U
Quote from: pabegg on February 16, 2009, 09:41:33 AM
OK, here we go for this week:
Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI OWP OOWP School Natl Status Reg Overall
GL 64 01 01 0.6193 0.5522 0.5154 Capital 013 A w C 18-3 20-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6115 0.5416 0.5208 John Carroll 018 C 4 16-3 18-4
GL 62 03 04 0.5876 0.4686 0.4965 Calvin 020 A w C 11-1 16-6
GL 63 04 05 0.5828 0.5133 0.5047 Wooster 037 A w C 16-4 17-6
GL 90 05 03 0.5921 0.5335 0.5366 Carnegie Mellon 038 C 13 13-4 17-5
GL 63 06 06 0.5798 0.5315 0.5063 Ohio Wesleyan 044 C 16 15-5 16-6
GL 64 07 08 0.5716 0.5334 0.5194 Ohio Northern 057 C 26 14-6 16-7
GL 62 08 07 0.5692 0.5446 0.4951 Hope 068 C 35 9-4 16-7
GL 61 09 09 0.5412 0.4724 0.4831 Penn State-Behrend 082 14-5 16-7
Reg Region
Conf Conference number
Rank Regional ranking
Prior Prior regional ranking
School
Natl National ranking based on regional results
Status
B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
A in: clinched Pool A bid
A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
A: lower level Pool A
blank: lower level Pool C
New Regional Rankings 2/18/2009:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-18-09 (http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-18-09)
Great Lakes Region Rankings 2/18/09 Updates Through Thursday 2/19
1. Capital 20-3 18-3 (won, 19-3)
2. John Carroll 18-4 16-3 (won, 17-3)
3. Carnegie Mellon 17-5 13-4
4. Calvin 16-6 11-1 (won, 12-1)
5. Wooster 17-6 16-4 (won, 17-4)
6. Ohio Wesleyan 16-6 15-5 (won, 16-5)
Washington U 77
Carnegie Mellon 63
Final
Just to finish up this season long look at the region..........final regular season in-region records.
1. Capital 20-3 .870
2t. Calvin 12-2 .857
2t. John Carroll 18-3 .857
4. Wooster 18-4 .818
--------------------------
5. Carnegie Mellon 14-5 .737
6. Hope 11-4 .733
7. Ohio Wesleyan 16-6 .727
8. PSU-Behrend 15-6 .714
------------------------------------
9. Ohio Northern 15-7 .682
Some changes this week, Calvin's loss doesn't hurt them too bad with their win%, however since the tournament selection involves OWP and OOWP I believe the Knights are firmly on the bubble as is Wooster.
Capital and JCU should be in regardless of how their tournaments go.
Hope, Ohio Wesleyan and Carnegie Mellon are on an even thinner bubble than Calvin and Wooster, in fact I think CMU is probably out, and Hope needs to win the MIAA. At the very least Hope and OWU need to win 2 in their tournament to have any chance at a 'C' bid, slim as that might be.
Ohio Northern needs to win their conference tournament, as does PSU Behrend.
Here's how Pabegg has it through this afternoon, with an update coming tommorrow sometime.
GL 64 01 01 0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital 012 A w C 20-3 22-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll 015 C 4 18-3 20-4
GL 62 03 03 0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin 033 A w C 12-2 17-7
GL 63 04 04 0.5751 0.4900 0.5023 Wooster 036 A w C 18-4 19-6
GL 90 05 05 0.5846 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon 044 C 15 14-5 18-6
GL 62 06 08 0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope 060 C 27 11-4 18-7
GL 63 07 06 0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan 065 C 32 16-6 17-7
GL 64 08 05 0.5622 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern 079 15-7 17-8
GL 61 09 09 0.5422 0.4853 0.4838 Penn State-Behrend 089 15-6 17-8
He has CMU as the #15 C team right now, but in all likely hood there will be at least 4 upsets in conference tournaments that will pull a C bid away.
Here are the win percentages the seven leading 'C' candidates can finish with
1st number is loss in round 1
2nd number is win in round 1, loss in round 2
3rd number is win in rounds 1 & 2, loss in Championship game
Capital .833, .840, .846
Calvin .800, .813, .824
John Carroll .818, .826, .833
Wooster .783, .792, .800
Carnegie Mellon .737
Hope .688, .706, .722
Ohio Wesleyan .696, .708, .720
........also the earlier the loss occurs, the bigger the hit to OWP and OOWP to take into consideration.
I actually like Calvin's and Wooster win %, it their OWP and OOWP numbers that could be a roadblock to other teams getting on the C table if one of those two gets on the table first. Nationally, Calvin and Wooster OWP and OOWP don't stack up well. I believe either would be a late C bid.
I realize there are other considerations, but win%, and OWP/OOWP seem to be the biggies.
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
Here are the win percentages the seven leading 'C' candidates can finish with
1st number is loss in round 1
2nd number is win in round 1, loss in round 2
3rd number is win in rounds 1 & 2, loss in Championship game
Capital .833, .840, .846
Calvin .800, .813, .824
John Carroll .818, .826, .833
Wooster .783, .792, .800
Carnegie Mellon .737
Hope .688, .706, .722
Ohio Wesleyan .696, .708, .720
........also the earlier the loss occurs, the bigger the hit to OWP and OOWP to take into consideration.
I actually like Calvin's and Wooster win %, it their OWP and OOWP numbers that could be a roadblock to other teams getting on the C table if one of those two gets on the table first. Nationally, Calvin and Wooster OWP and OOWP don't stack up well. I believe either would be a late C bid.
I realize there are other considerations, but win%, and OWP/OOWP seem to be the biggies.
CMU has wins against regionally ranked opponents in their favor with early season wins against John Carroll and Wooster. I think that is the only thing that has kept them afloat over the last two weeks. They still have a tough road game at Rochester; should be interesting.
There is no way Wooster is ranked ahead of CMU if it comes down to a Pool C if they beat Rochester. Maybe if CMU loses to Rochester they flip, but just because Wooster has a couple more regional wins isnt going to negate the head-to-head result and the OWP numbers (if Wooster doesnt win their tourney and picks up a 5th region loss).
Who has Wooster beaten of significance recently? I know they have won 11 of 12 and 14 of 16, but all those wins are against ~0.500 or worse teams (except for Hiram).
Meanwhile, CMU has 6 losses (5 in region) 2 of those to #2 WashU, 2 more to Brandeis (who have a winning percentage of 0.667 but have one of the highest OWPs in the country) and their only out of region loss is to 23-2 Richard Stockton.
CMU has one bad loss against Case, but Wooster has lost to W&J, Wabash, and also lost the head to head to CMU.
If CMU wins and Wooster doesnt win their tourney, I dont think there is any way a 15-5 CMU team, with the head to head, will be ranked behind a 20-5 Wooster team (especially when you consider the 0.509 and 0.503 OWP and OOWP numbers for Wooster, compared to 0.557 and 0.531 for CMU).
Similarly, Calvin has sub 0.500 OWP and OOWP, meaning they are beating losing teams. The committee seems intelligent enough not to look purely at winning percentage (Calvin hasnt been ranked ahead of CMU yet).
If Capital or John Carroll win the OAC tourney, I think CMU will be first or second under consideration for Pool C from the GL (I think they could still be ranked ahead of John Carroll if JCU doesnt win their tourney and CMU beats Rochester, because CMU would have the head to head win and only a one loss difference between the two teams, CMU also has considerably better OWP and OOWP numbers).
The Rochester game will be huge for CMU to not pick up a 6th loss, but with their quality in-region wins and nearly all of their losses being to quality opponents, I think they are in much better shape than you guys are giving them credit for by just looking at their in-region winning percentage. If that was all the committee looked at, CMU would have been ranked below Calvin and Wooster for some time now, but they obviously havent. I also dont think they will be penalized too much for a loss on the road to WashU this week, I guess we will see when the rankings come out on Wednesday.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 11:40:07 AM
There is no way Wooster is ranked ahead of CMU if it comes down to a Pool C if they beat Rochester. Maybe if CMU loses to Rochester they flip, but just because Wooster has a couple more regional wins isnt going to negate the head-to-head result and the OWP numbers (if Wooster doesnt win their tourney and picks up a 5th region loss).
Who has Wooster beaten of significance recently? I know they have won 11 of 12 and 14 of 16, but all those wins are against ~0.500 or worse teams (except for Hiram).
Meanwhile, CMU has 6 losses (5 in region) 2 of those to #2 WashU, 2 more to Brandeis (who have a winning percentage of 0.667 but have one of the highest OWPs in the country) and their only out of region loss is to 23-2 Richard Stockton.
CMU has one bad loss against Case, but Wooster has lost to W&J, Wabash, and also lost the head to head to CMU.
If CMU wins and Wooster doesnt win their tourney, I dont think there is any way a 15-5 CMU team, with the head to head, will be ranked behind a 20-5 Wooster team (especially when you consider the 0.509 and 0.503 OWP and OOWP numbers for Wooster, compared to 0.557 and 0.531 for CMU).
Similarly, Calvin has sub 0.500 OWP and OOWP, meaning they are beating losing teams. The committee seems intelligent enough not to look purely at winning percentage (Calvin hasnt been ranked ahead of CMU yet).
If Capital or John Carroll win the OAC tourney, I think CMU will be first or second under consideration for Pool C from the GL (I think they could still be ranked ahead of John Carroll if JCU doesnt win their tourney and CMU beats Rochester, because CMU would have the head to head win and only a one loss difference between the two teams, CMU also has considerably better OWP and OOWP numbers).
The Rochester game will be huge for CMU to not pick up a 6th loss, but with their quality in-region wins and nearly all of their losses being to quality opponents, I think they are in much better shape than you guys are giving them credit for by just looking at their in-region winning percentage. If that was all the committee looked at, CMU would have been ranked below Calvin and Wooster for some time now, but they obviously havent. I also dont think they will be penalized too much for a loss on the road to WashU this week, I guess we will see when the rankings come out on Wednesday.
A. I realize there is more than just winning % to consider
B. I've kept track of winning % all season, just trying to stay consistent
C. I forgot CMU still had a reg season game with Rochester
D. I don't believe CMU is in a good position in the Pool C race, nor do I believe Calvin or Wooster are which have been outlined at least once..
Thats fair.
I was just trying to bring another perspective to a conversation dominated by OAC and NCAC supporters.
I still think they have a good chance (>50%) if they beat Rochester and are ranked #1 GL after Pool As are taken off the board (if Capital wins their tourney). What might hurt them is if they and Brandeis are on the board at the same time, because it would be difficult to give CMU a nod over Brandeis if they were being compared to eachother, so I could see them both being left out.
If you compare CMU to a team like Amherst (that is currently #10 on pabeggs list), you cant really see much of a difference. Amherst is 17-5, CMU 14-5 (in region, Amherst 20-5 overall and CMU 19-5). CMU also has a higher OWP .557 to Amherst's 0.531. If Amherst doesnt win their tourney, I think CMU can jump over a lot of the teams ahead of them that are considered to be in the 7-14 Pool C picks range, because CMU doesnt have to get another loss because they arent in a tourney (they still could, but it isnt a given like other leagues where it is Pool A or another loss). Here are a list of teams that I think CMU could jump over currently ranked ahead of them by pabegg (if they beat Rochester): Centre (currently 4 region losses), Elmhurst (6 region losses), Bridgewater State (4 region losses, or Salem State 5 region losses), Amherst (5 region losses), St. Josephs (3 region losses), Montclair State (5 region losses), William Patterson (6 region losses), and McDaniel (6 region losses).
CMU's OWP compared to those teams currently ahead of them (all those teams could also pick up one more loss): 0.557 and 0.531
Centre: .555 .502
Elmhurst: .586 .555
Bridgewater: .518 .505
Amherst: .531 .545
St. Joseph's: .493 .503
Montclair: .540 .497
William Patterson: .515 .504
McDaniel: .547 .532
So as you can see, in addition to the region losses, there is no much that differentiates all these teams. So CMU could easily jump up to around 7 on the Pool C list if they beat Rochester and all those teams's lose their tourney and pick up another loss.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 04:26:45 PM
I was just trying to bring another perspective to a conversation dominated by OAC and NCAC supporters.
And where are these OAC and NCAC supporters that are supposedly dominating the conversation on this board? You have to go back 5 pages just to find a poster from the NCAC. And outside of a couple of posts from Pat Coleman, the only other posters in this board are MIAA supporters! :-\
My fault for leaving out the MIAA, maybe I should have said a CMU perspective.
Allegheny 78 Ohio Wesleyan 75 OT
OWU's worst nitemare occurs, they finish with an in-region record of 16-7 and a win % of .696. I don't believe that will good enough to draw a Pool C bid.
The NCAC pulled an OAC this year with 3 lower seeds all winning,
#6 Wabash v #7 Allegheny
#5 Kenyon v #1 Wooster
I'm not sure OWU had much a chance at a C unless they made the NCAC final, even then I think it was slim. I'm not sure this really helps anyone except Wooster who maybe now has an "easier" road to the A bid. Maybe Hope who it seems would almost be assured of being ranked ahead of OWU in the invisible final poll and hence would get on the C table before OWU. Not sure thats accurate either.
But it now brings up the prospect of 3 teams who had no shot at an at-large bid now firmly in the mix.
.......and we're just getting started. :)
I, for one, will be pulling for Wooster, both for sentimental reasons and Pool C ramifications.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 10:46:11 PM
I, for one, will be pulling for Wooster, both for sentimental reasons and Pool C ramifications.
........and I guess if Carnegie beats Rochester, OWU's loss and a Wooster win would certainly bolster CMU's claim for a 'C' bid. The earlier you're on the table the better.
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2009, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 10:46:11 PM
I, for one, will be pulling for Wooster, both for sentimental reasons and Pool C ramifications.
........and I guess if Carnegie beats Rochester, OWU's loss and a Wooster win would certainly bolster CMU's claim for a 'C' bid. The earlier you're on the table the better.
Agreed. Also, if JCU gets upset in their tourney and Capital wins the OAC A bid, I think CMU has a chance of leapfrogging JCU as well, because of the head-to-head result (JCU would have 4 losses to CMU's 5). But most importantly, CMU has to take care of their own business by beating a tough Rochester team on the road. Rochester looked like they had packed it in for the season, but the win on the road versus WashU has me pretty worried. In all likelihood, Rochester doesnt have much of a shot at a Pool C with 8 regional losses, but they could really hurt CMU's chances at one this weekend. Should be a fun week of basketball.
New regional rankings out:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBK22509Regional
Top 6 teams look unchanged in the GL, only difference is that JCU takes over the top spot form Capital (#1 and #2 switch).
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 03:15:02 PM
New regional rankings out:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBK22509Regional
Top 6 teams look unchanged in the GL, only difference is that JCU takes over the top spot form Capital (#1 and #2 switch).
It seems completely meaningless to rank OWU #6 since they lost last night and probably won't be ranked again. I know they aren't supposed to look at last night results etc, etc.
By the way, here's an odd twist. Calvin's Pool C credentials would be 'helped' if Hope won the MIAA Tournament either by Calvin losing to Hope, or earlier. Hope it would seem would earn the #6 ranking in the region..........one of the criteria is wins vs ranked teams and just like that Calvin picks up 2 key wins vs a ranked team. :-\
Without the wins vs a ranked team, and a low OWP/OOWP the bubble would be thin. Best to just win the A me thinks.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 03:15:02 PM
New regional rankings out:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBK22509Regional
Top 6 teams look unchanged in the GL, only difference is that JCU takes over the top spot form Capital (#1 and #2 switch).
Quote
Great Lakes Region
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6
My brain has been working hard lately... Who is supposed to be 4 and who is 5? I R confused!
Yeah, I didnt notice that at first glance. Let's just hope that Wooster wins the A bid so that it doesnt matter. I would venture to say that Wooster is probably the 4, but I guess there will be some confusion until they correct that mistake.
Quote from: SKOT on February 25, 2009, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 03:15:02 PM
New regional rankings out:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBK22509Regional
Top 6 teams look unchanged in the GL, only difference is that JCU takes over the top spot form Capital (#1 and #2 switch).
Quote
Great Lakes Region
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6
My brain has been working hard lately... Who is supposed to be 4 and who is 5? I R confused!
Well I supposes it depends on who you ask. I have it on good authority that the Great Lakes Region reps submitted the rankings with Calvin #4, Wooster #5, there was also a tie at #6.
The
National Committee changed the rankings (which they can do)
To me its clear why, and no one should be happy about it. Fortunately it will all be cleared up with the invisible rankings next week. ::)
Both Capital and John Carroll win tonight in the OAC quarterfinals. Calvin won in the MIAA quarters. So far, so good in the Great Lakes for playing out according to form. Wooster probably needs to make the NCAC final to bolster C chances; same story for Calvin in the MIAA. JCU and Capital probably became locks with the wins tonight regardless of how the OAC plays out.
Does that seem right?
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2009, 10:14:19 PM
Both Capital and John Carroll win tonight in the OAC quarterfinals. Calvin won in the MIAA quarters. So far, so good in the Great Lakes for playing out according to form. Wooster probably needs to make the NCAC final to bolster C chances; same story for Calvin in the MIAA. JCU and Capital probably became locks with the wins tonight regardless of how the OAC plays out.
Does that seem right?
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2009, 10:10:37 PM
Well I supposes it depends on who you ask. I have it on good authority that the Great Lakes Region reps submitted the rankings with Calvin #4, Wooster #5, there was also a tie at #6.
The National Committee changed the rankings (which they can do)
To me its clear why, and no one should be happy about it. Fortunately it will all be cleared up with the invisible rankings next week. ::)
Transparency and accountability through invisibility: The NCAA way!
Quote from: ziggy on February 26, 2009, 08:49:25 AM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2009, 10:10:37 PM
Well I supposes it depends on who you ask. I have it on good authority that the Great Lakes Region reps submitted the rankings with Calvin #4, Wooster #5, there was also a tie at #6.
The National Committee changed the rankings (which they can do)
To me its clear why, and no one should be happy about it. Fortunately it will all be cleared up with the invisible rankings next week. ::)
Transparency and accountability through invisibility: The NCAA way!
They're Democrats? Ah...that explains a lot. :o ;) :D :P
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2009, 10:14:19 PM
Both Capital and John Carroll win tonight in the OAC quarterfinals. Calvin won in the MIAA quarters. So far, so good in the Great Lakes for playing out according to form. Wooster probably needs to make the NCAC final to bolster C chances; same story for Calvin in the MIAA. JCU and Capital probably became locks with the wins tonight regardless of how the OAC plays out.
Does that seem right?
With Calvin ranked 4th or 5th in the region, what are the Knights chances of making the tournament if they lose in the conference finals? Assuming both Calvin and Hope make it to the finals, since they are so evenly matched, I have to think Hope has a pretty good chance of winning if they play a third time.
Quote from: Knight81 on February 27, 2009, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2009, 10:14:19 PM
Both Capital and John Carroll win tonight in the OAC quarterfinals. Calvin won in the MIAA quarters. So far, so good in the Great Lakes for playing out according to form. Wooster probably needs to make the NCAC final to bolster C chances; same story for Calvin in the MIAA. JCU and Capital probably became locks with the wins tonight regardless of how the OAC plays out.
Does that seem right?
With Calvin ranked 4th or 5th in the region, what are the Knights chances of making the tournament if they lose in the conference finals? Assuming both Calvin and Hope make it to the finals, since they are so evenly matched, I have to think Hope has a pretty good chance of winning if they play a third time.
Chances would have been a lot better with a win at Kalamazoo...
Quote from: Knight81 on February 27, 2009, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2009, 10:14:19 PM
Both Capital and John Carroll win tonight in the OAC quarterfinals. Calvin won in the MIAA quarters. So far, so good in the Great Lakes for playing out according to form. Wooster probably needs to make the NCAC final to bolster C chances; same story for Calvin in the MIAA. JCU and Capital probably became locks with the wins tonight regardless of how the OAC plays out.
Does that seem right?
With Calvin ranked 4th or 5th in the region, what are the Knights chances of making the tournament if they lose in the conference finals? Assuming both Calvin and Hope make it to the finals, since they are so evenly matched, I have to think Hope has a pretty good chance of winning if they play a third time.
See the MIAA board for a review of the issue of third games in a season. With Calvin having won 2 games already, playing at home where they are finally clicking, I would put them as the favorite, not Hope (if there can be a favorite in this rivalry).
OAC:
Capital 63, ONU 58
John Carroll 83, Muskingum 69
Championship game: #2 Capital at #1 JCU, 7:30pm Saturday. The winner gets the automatic NCAA bid and a fairly likely home regional, while the loser probably gets the booby prize of a Pool C bid.
NCAC:
Wooster 89, Kenyon 71
Wabash 73, Allegheny 56
Championship game: #6 Wabash at #1 Wooster, 7:00pm Saturday. The winner gets the automatic NCAA bid, while the loser likely goes home. If Wooster wins, I'd anticipate their being sent to the regional sure to be at the OAC champ's site. That's also where they'd probably go if, by some miracle, they got a Pool C bid after a loss. Where Wabash would go is beyond my ken.
Beyond JCU and Capital there doesn't seem to be any other hosting worthy Great Lakes teams. Its not inconceivable(though unlikely) that both JCU and Capital could earn a hosting weekend with one getting a bye.
We'll never see what the final Great Lakes Region rankings are........I might take a stab at them this way
1. John Carroll
2. Capital
3. Carnegie Mellon
4. Wooster
5. Hope
6. Calvin
I think you could legitimately flip Hope or Calvin, it really doesn't matter since Hope has the AQ.
This would make Calvin Pool C #3 from the Great Lakes, Capital should go early, and Carnegie soon after so Calvin's name should be in the discussion for a long time. They have a pretty good in-region record in their favor 14-3, with a wins versus ranked teams of 2-1 vs inregion, 2-2 including Wheaton (thats assuming Hope gets ranked, can't believe they wouldn't, also can't remember if Carthage was ever ranked, that would be a negative). I'm not sure what their OWP and OOWP will finish but they'll be helped by having played Hope 3 times whose now 14-4, but 13-2 is what Calvin would count.
However there was quite a bit of carnage across D3 today, that will hurt.
I don't know its not inconceivable that Calvin could slide in much the same way Wheaton did a year ago. Ironic that there still might be Hope. ;)
CMU and Elmhurst should go off roughly the same time, leaving Calvin and Augie together at the table. It's way too late at night for me to try to figure out who else would be there, or even to figure out how Calvin and Augie compare, but an intriguing match-up. ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2009, 02:32:44 AM
CMU and Elmhurst should go off roughly the same time, leaving Calvin and Augie together at the table. It's way too late at night for me to try to figure out who else would be there, or even to figure out how Calvin and Augie compare, but an intriguing match-up. ;)
Kind of looking that way, but I made that post without really reading the whole Pool C thread........yikes, even more carnage than I thought. Anymore tommorrow and it may not matter at all. I do think Calvin's name will be on the table though.
Calvin's name is on the table in the projection. We also regionally rank Hope. Projection has seven Pool C spots left.
Gettysburg beat Franklin and Marshall this evening, thats probably another Pool C bid gone.
TitanQ seems to feel there are only 2 bids unaccounted for.......really bad news for Carnegie and Calvin. :(
Here's his post from the Pool C discussion
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:32:27 PM
I think 16 of the 18 Pool C's are basically accounted for:
(in no particular order)
1. UW-Whitewater
2. Buena Vista
3. St. Mary's (Md)
4. Guilford
5. UW-Platteville
6. Elmhurst
7. Capital
8. Rhode Island
9. St. Lawrence
10. Salem St.
11. Trinity-Tx
12. Ithaca
13. Farmingdale St.
14. Worcester Poly
15. Puget Sound
16. Franklin & Marshall
Candidates for final 2 spots:
(in no particular order)
* Randolph-Macon
* Hamilton
* Augustana
* Carnegie-Mellon
* Calvin
* Amherst
* Brandeis
D3Hoops does not have Franklin & Marshall in their projections, thus they project the three remaining spots going to Amherst, Brandies, and CM
Quote from: goscots on March 01, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
D3Hoops does not have Franklin & Marshall in their projections, thus they project the three remaining spots going to Amherst, Brandies, and CM
Those projections were made when they thought F&M would be Pool A.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: goscots on March 01, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
D3Hoops does not have Franklin & Marshall in their projections, thus they project the three remaining spots going to Amherst, Brandies, and CM
Those projections were made when they thought F&M would be Pool A.
Agreed - but it was my impression that D3 was also implying it was a one bid conference. I am not that up to speed on the relative strength of the Centennial conference.
If there truly are only two bids left, I would think the first team off the board of those three I listed would be Amherst, (D3 did state it was the last team they added).
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2009, 05:12:29 PM
Gettysburg beat Franklin and Marshall this evening, thats probably another Pool C bid gone.
TitanQ seems to feel there are only 2 bids unaccounted for.......really bad news for Carnegie and Calvin. :(
Here's his post from the Pool C discussion
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:32:27 PM
I think 16 of the 18 Pool C's are basically accounted for:
(in no particular order)
1. UW-Whitewater
2. Buena Vista
3. St. Mary's (Md)
4. Guilford
5. UW-Platteville
6. Elmhurst
7. Capital
8. Rhode Island
9. St. Lawrence
10. Salem St.
11. Trinity-Tx
12. Ithaca
13. Farmingdale St.
14. Worcester Poly
15. Puget Sound
16. Franklin & Marshall
Candidates for final 2 spots:
(in no particular order)
* Randolph-Macon
* Hamilton
* Augustana
* Carnegie-Mellon
* Calvin
* Amherst
* Brandeis
Is this the time where we start whining and complaining that it isn't a 64 team tournament?
Quote from: goscots on March 01, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: goscots on March 01, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
D3Hoops does not have Franklin & Marshall in their projections, thus they project the three remaining spots going to Amherst, Brandies, and CM
Those projections were made when they thought F&M would be Pool A.
Agreed - but it was my impression that D3 was also implying it was a one bid conference. I am not that up to speed on the relative strength of the Centennial conference.
If there truly are only two bids left, I would think the first team off the board of those three I listed would be Amherst, (D3 did state it was the last team they added).
The Centennial is weak enough that the
conference really only deserves one bid. But
teams are selected, not conferences, and F&M deserves a slot despite blowing the game.
Conference tourneys can be very beneficial to weaker conferences - IF there is one dominant team, but they get upset in the tourney, the conference may get a second bid
it did not really deserve. For power conferences, tourneys are more likely to hurt than help, since teams who might otherwise be worthy will pick up another in-region loss.
QuoteGL 64 01 02 0.6174 0.5369 0.5209 John Carroll 009 A in 21-3 23-4
GL 64 02 01 0.6095 0.5381 0.5156 Capital 016 C 6 22-4 24-4
GL 63 03 04 0.5792 0.4870 0.5031 Wooster 035 A in 21-4 22-6
GL 62 04 03 0.5785 0.4960 0.4984 Calvin 039 C 19 14-3 19-8
GL 62 05 06 0.5827 0.5271 0.4988 Hope 040 A in 14-4 21-7
GL 90 06 05 0.5918 0.5449 0.5273 Carnegie Mellon 041 C 20 15-5 19-6
GL 64 07 08 0.5577 0.5223 0.5196 Ohio Northern 081 16-8 18-9
GL 63 08 07 0.5480 0.4992 0.4979 Ohio Wesleyan 084 16-7 17-8
GL 61 09 09 0.5353 0.4870 0.4854 Penn State-Behrend 096 15-7 17-9
Pabegg ran his numbers tonight, Calvin comes in as Pool C #19, but also has Carnegie at #20. Once again though these aren't necessarily the NCAA's answers. I think I'd take from this that Calvin is right on the edge and could go either way.
I have to say Calvin coming in at 19 on the Pool C's is a bit surprising to me. I thought with the number of upsets this weekend taking Pool C spots that Calvin would be completely outside the picture this morning. Who knows? They may yet sneak in but I sure wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut (recently relocated from DC) on March 02, 2009, 09:56:33 AM
I have to say Calvin coming in at 19 on the Pool C's is a bit surprising to me. I thought with the number of upsets this weekend taking Pool C spots that Calvin would be completely outside the picture this morning. Who knows? They may yet sneak in but I sure wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Those are Pabegg's numbers not necessarily the NCAA's, I'm sure Calvin was on the table at the end. So anywhere between 19-25.
I am more inclined to go with one of your earlier posts Sac, and think eliminating Calvin occurred early, and was easy and painless for the committee.
This is probably a dumb question from a newby to the board like me, but why are there not 64 teams in the tournament? Why not have 64 teams who all play a first round game, instead of giving 4 teams a bye? I'm not saying Calvin is more deserving than other teams that got in, because Calvin lost some games they should have won, but it seems to me there should be room in the tournament for a team like Calvin, which went 19-8 and was the conference champion of the MIAA.
Quote from: Knight81 on March 03, 2009, 09:04:22 AM
This is probably a dumb question from a newby to the board like me, but why are there not 64 teams in the tournament? Why not have 64 teams who all play a first round game, instead of giving 4 teams a bye? I'm not saying Calvin is more deserving than other teams that got in, because Calvin lost some games they should have won, but it seems to me there should be room in the tournament for a team like Calvin, which went 19-8 and was the conference champion of the MIAA.
An even bigger headscratcher for me is why the women's tournament has 63 teams. Would it be too much to ask the NCAA to add one more team?
The field size is determined by a formula. I believe that it's one tournament berth for every 6.5 teams (and only full members, not provisional new members) competing in a given sport in D3. It does seem silly to me, too, but that's how it's determined.
i think also if calvin would have beaten kzoo then i think calvin would have beein in it
Quote from: oldknight on March 03, 2009, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: Knight81 on March 03, 2009, 09:04:22 AM
This is probably a dumb question from a newby to the board like me, but why are there not 64 teams in the tournament? Why not have 64 teams who all play a first round game, instead of giving 4 teams a bye? I'm not saying Calvin is more deserving than other teams that got in, because Calvin lost some games they should have won, but it seems to me there should be room in the tournament for a team like Calvin, which went 19-8 and was the conference champion of the MIAA.
An even bigger headscratcher for me is why the women's tournament has 63 teams. Would it be too much to ask the NCAA to add one more team?
They are adding a 64th team for next year's tournament. The reason that there's 63 women's teams vs. just 60 for the men is that there are more schools with women's teams than men's. In fact, I believe there are more women's hoops teams than any other sport.
GL Region rankings through games of Monday, 12/14/2009.
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR Team
GL 01 1.000 0.833 0.579 .8114 001 A C 2-0 5-3 Hope
GL 02 1.000 0.698 0.565 .7402 002 A C 7-0 8-1 Wilmington
GL 03 0.714 0.707 0.545 .6685 013 C 004 5-2 5-3 Mount Union
GL 04 0.750 0.674 0.539 .6591 020 C 008 6-2 6-2 John Carroll
GL 05 0.000 1.000 0.625 .6563 022 C 010 0-1 2-5 Calvin
GL 06 0.714 0.676 0.541 .6521 025 C 011 5-2 6-2 Case Western Reserve
GL 07 0.857 0.524 0.575 .6199 041 A C 6-1 6-1 Frostburg State
GL 08 0.714 0.633 0.496 .6192 042 C 019 5-2 5-2 Penn State-Behrend
GL 09 0.667 0.606 0.531 .6025 057 A 4-2 4-3 Hiram
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
A Status: Rank in Pool (C or B)
C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
The Great Lakes currently projects 10 teams into the tournament, most of any region, but there's still a long way to go.
GL Region rankings through (most) games of Monday, 12/21/2009.
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 1.000 0.833 0.591 0.8144 001 A C 2-0 5-3 MIAA Hope
GL 02 1.000 0.582 0.545 0.6772 009 A C 8-0 9-1 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.000 1.000 0.625 0.6563 020 C 008 0-1 3-5 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.778 0.600 0.541 0.6297 031 C 012 7-2 7-2 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.625 0.691 0.502 0.6272 034 C 014 5-3 5-4 OAC Mount Union
GL 06 0.714 0.641 0.507 0.6259 035 C 015 5-2 6-2 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 07 0.857 0.535 0.566 0.6231 036 A C 6-1 6-1 AMCC Frostburg State
GL 08 0.714 0.633 0.494 0.6187 040 C 018 5-2 5-2 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 09 0.571 0.673 0.482 0.6000 062 C 034 4-3 4-3 UAA Carnegie Mellon
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
Notes:
- Still projecting 10 Great Lakes teams in the tournament, but it's still very early (see Calvin below).
- Win or Lose, it looks like Calvin will fall out of the rankings after the 12/29 matchup with Ohio Northern.
- Wooster comes in ranked #11 in the GL, top in the NCAC.
- Washington and Jefferson tops the PrAC eligible teams at #18.
Who and where are the nearest NCAC teams?
Quote from: sac on December 22, 2009, 05:16:08 PM
Who and where are the nearest NCAC teams?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 22, 2009, 09:55:54 AM
Notes:
- Wooster comes in ranked #11 in the GL, top in the NCAC.
Hiram is 5-2, and I'd guess they're running second to Wooster. Wittenberg is 3-2 in region, but their OWP is probably fairly low and getting lower tonight when they take on Otterbein. Nobody else is really worth mentioning.
Here's the NCAC breakdown, again through (most of) monday's games.
Reg. Rank Team WP OWP OOWP RPI Natl CON Pool Reg OVR Conf.
GL 11 Wooster .6667 .5490 .5529 .5794 86 1 A 6-3 6-4 NCAC
GL 15 Hiram .7143 .4783 .5559 .5567 117 2 C 077 5-2 5-3 NCAC
GL 16 Wittenberg .6000 .5882 .4441 .5551 119 3 C 079 3-2 6-2 NCAC
GL 19 Allegheny .4000 .5556 .5314 .5106 193 4 C 147 2-3 4-3 NCAC
GL 22 Wabash .5000 .5094 .4771 .4990 214 5 C 167 4-4 4-5 NCAC
GL 29 Denison .2500 .5370 .4867 .4527 282 6 C 227 2-6 2-7 NCAC
GL 32 Ohio Wesleyan.2000 .5172 .4913 .4314 306 7 C 247 1-4 2-5 NCAC
GL 33 Kenyon .2857 .4348 .5413 .4242 317 8 C 257 2-5 3-6 NCAC
GL 36 Earlham .3750 .3774 .4466 .3941 343 9 C 282 3-5 3-7 NCAC
GL 37 Oberlin .5000 .2791 .5066 .3912 347 10 C 286 4-4 4-5 NCAC
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Quote from: David Collinge on December 23, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Witt's OWP dropped to 0.500 after the Otterbein game.
I'm astounded that Wooster can stay in the Top 25 and Anderson still is outside looking in. What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? ...besides lose more games.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 08:29:33 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 23, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Witt's OWP dropped to 0.500 after the Otterbein game.
I'm astounded that Wooster can stay in the Top 25 and Anderson still is outside looking in. What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? ...besides losing more games.
Its all about that preseason ranking. If you are not receiving votes before the season starts, you really need to convince voters to start voting for you (ie, Wilmington). Conversely, if people think you are top 25 material, it takes them a while to drop you out. With that said, Wooster will definitely drop out in next weeks rankings, but remember that the current poll (which was released last week), does not take into account their last loss.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 23, 2009, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 08:29:33 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 23, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Witt's OWP dropped to 0.500 after the Otterbein game.
I'm astounded that Wooster can stay in the Top 25 and Anderson still is outside looking in. What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? ...besides losing more games.
Its all about that preseason ranking. If you are not receiving votes before the season starts, you really need to convince voters to start voting for you (ie, Wilmington). Conversely, if people think you are top 25 material, it takes them a while to drop you out. With that said, Wooster will definitely drop out in next weeks rankings, but remember that the current poll (which was released last week), does not take into account their last loss.
I understand that the last loss is not counted, but even without it, they'd done nothing to deserve double the votes of Anderson.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 11:27:43 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 23, 2009, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 08:29:33 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 23, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Witt's OWP dropped to 0.500 after the Otterbein game.
I'm astounded that Wooster can stay in the Top 25 and Anderson still is outside looking in. What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? ...besides losing more games.
Its all about that preseason ranking. If you are not receiving votes before the season starts, you really need to convince voters to start voting for you (ie, Wilmington). Conversely, if people think you are top 25 material, it takes them a while to drop you out. With that said, Wooster will definitely drop out in next weeks rankings, but remember that the current poll (which was released last week), does not take into account their last loss.
I understand that the last loss is not counted, but even without it, they'd done nothing to deserve double the votes of Anderson.
I agree with you, but that is just human nature. People have a tendency to think that they are correct in their assessments and resist admitting they are wrong about it until proven without a doubt. If Wooster had not been ranked in the top 10 in the preseason, there is no way they would be receiving any votes right now, but because they started out way up there, there are still those voters who are having trouble dropping them from their ballot. Unfortunately, this is how these things go. Voters will be quick to reward Wooster if they win some games and they are slow to punish them if they lose games, especially if the teams they lose to are perceived to be strong, only because the initial perception of Wooster is that they should be a top 10 team. Same things goes for F&M. They have two losses to unranked teams and only have beaten two teams with winning records and neither of those teams are ranked any longer now that St. Mary's is out of the rankings, yet F&M is still ranked #14. You could probably make this argument for a bunch of teams. It just comes down to the fact that people are resistant to change their opinions because most people are inherently stubborn. Additionally, most voters dont look at the whole body of work of a team, they instead only look at the last week's results when adjusting the previous week's rankings. This is silly in my opinion because, especially this early in the season, you dont really know who is good and who isnt. So a win that may not have looked impressive in week 1 may be impressive now. Or a loss to what you thought was a good team may be understandable, but if that team is 2-7 right now, that is a bad loss.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 08:29:33 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 23, 2009, 12:49:49 AM
Thanks, KS. Witt's OWP is a lot higher than I thought; I was not thinking of Anderson's sterling 8-1 regional record. However, when tonight's game vs. Otterbein (1-9 in region) gets factored in, it won't help the Tigers any.
Witt's OWP dropped to 0.500 after the Otterbein game.
I'm astounded that Wooster can stay in the Top 25 and Anderson still is outside looking in. What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? ...besides lose more games.
What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? Oh, I don't know. How about playing 3 teams that are or were ranked in the top FIVE in the d3hoops.com top 25 poll with the possiblity of adding the #1 team in all of the land to that list 5 days after X-mas. Anderson has played ONE ranked team and guess what? They lost that game! Hypothetically speaking, how do you think Anderson would fare facing Wooster's gauntlet of a non-conference schedule and vice versa with Wooster having Anderson's relatively light schedule? Considering that 4 of Anderson's 8 wins have come against teams with a combined SIX wins, my guess would be Anderson's record would look a lot more like Wooster's and Wooster's would look a lot more like Anderson's...
As I've said on the top 25 board, Wooster has had 2 losses that were sort of head scratchers. Their season opening loss at Albion and their blowout loss at home to #2 UST. Outside of that, Wooster was very much in both of their losses on the road to then #2 JCU and current #5 R-MC. At JCU the score was tied with under 2 minutes to go and at R-MC, Wooster was tied and had the ball with a chance to take the lead with just over a minute to go.
So, I would say that Wooster, while their record may not indicate it, is not that far off from living up to their pre-season top 10 ranking. Had they been able to finish those games at JCU and at R-MC, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And I think the voters have been taking Wooster's losses to very good competition into account. And while I agree that they will indeed drop out of the next poll when it is released, if they somehow upset the #1 team in the country the week after Christmas, does that warrant their return?
Personally, I'm not all that concerned about Wooster being ranked at this point of the season. I knew that this opening 2 months of the season was going to be very difficult on the Scots as it has proven to be. But, while the record has sufferred, I think the learning experiences gained from playing almost every team ranked in the top 5 of the current poll will prove to be very valuable as this team moves forward into conference play and then on into post-season play! Anderson may look better on paper when comparing their record against the Scots now, but my money would be on Wooster if they happen to cross each other's paths come February in the Dance...
I have a hard time giving teams credit for playing a tough schedule if they don't win any of the tough games. I won't count it against Wooster, but I can't credit them for it either.
I am searching Woo's schedule and I can't find a game that says "that was a really good win."
Anderson beat Platteville (@ Platteville), which seems better than any of Wooster's wins, and Wooster lost to Albion, which is worse than Anderson's (lone) loss to ranked Augustana.
I am not trying to argue that Anderson is far and away a better team (I expect Wooster to fare much better by the end of the season), I just find it hard to accept that their comparative resumes lead Wooster to receive more than twice the votes Anderson got.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 01:59:48 PM
I am not trying to argue that Anderson is far and away a better team (I expect Wooster to fare much better by the end of the season), I just find it hard to accept that their comparative resumes lead Wooster to receive more than twice the votes Anderson got.
As hungered pointed out, that's the nature of the beast when you have Wooster who was in the pre-season top 10 and Anderson who wasn't even a blip on anybody's radar. And when you factor in that Wooster has been more than competitive in their last 2 games vs. highly ranked opponents, I think voters tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you think that if Wooster's losses were all along the same lines as their loss at Albion that they would still find themselves in the top 25 or even receiving votes? I highly doubt it.
You may not like to give teams credit for playing a tough schedule even if they don't win any games, but that's just your own opinion. You also can't punish a ranked team for having a tough schedule and not winning any of those tough games vs. other higher ranked opponents in the same way you punish ranked teams for losing to unranked opponents. And I think that has been the case with the voters and how they look at Wooster. They are not going to punish Wooster for being more than competitive on the road in losses to teams ranked above them in top 5 the same way they might punish Wooster for their loss at Albion. IMO, you take away that Albion loss and Wooster is probably solidly in the top 20 right now. IMO, that one loss has hurt Wooster more than their other 3 losses combined in the eyes of the voters...
Quote from: ScotsFan on December 23, 2009, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 01:59:48 PM
I am not trying to argue that Anderson is far and away a better team (I expect Wooster to fare much better by the end of the season), I just find it hard to accept that their comparative resumes lead Wooster to receive more than twice the votes Anderson got.
As hungered pointed out, that's the nature of the beast when you have Wooster who was in the pre-season top 10 and Anderson who wasn't even a blip on anybody's radar. And when you factor in that Wooster has been more than competitive in their last 2 games vs. highly ranked opponents, I think voters tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you think that if Wooster's losses were all along the same lines as their loss at Albion that they would still find themselves in the top 25 or even receiving votes? I highly doubt it.
You may not like to give teams credit for playing a tough schedule even if they don't win any games, but that's just your own opinion. You also can't punish a ranked team for having a tough schedule and not winning any of those tough games vs. other higher ranked opponents in the same way you punish ranked teams for losing to unranked opponents. And I think that has been the case with the voters and how they look at Wooster. They are not going to punish Wooster for being more than competitive on the road in losses to teams ranked above them in top 5 the same way they might punish Wooster for their loss at Albion. IMO, you take away that Albion loss and Wooster is probably solidly in the top 20 right now. IMO, that one loss has hurt Wooster more than their other 3 losses combined in the eyes of the voters...
The R-MC loss was after the vote so you can't factor that one in, so they were "in" one of those games and "not in" the other. Albion is a good team, but they aren't a top team, and they should be beaten by a Top 25 team.
But it's not just losing to #2 or #11 or @Albion, it's the combination of all of those things. You can't lose
all of your tough games (like Wooster has so far) and still be ranked in the top 25 just because you "played a tough schedule." At some point you need a signature win (and I'm sure Wooster will get one) to combat the losses.
I think it's a shame that Preseason biases are still weighing so heavily in the Top 25 rankings.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 03:25:02 PM
I think it's a shame that Preseason biases are still weighing so heavily in the Top 25 rankings.
While the point has merit you can't realistically expect a d3 basketball poll to rise above the same prevailing problem in the FBS polls.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 03:25:02 PM
I think it's a shame that Preseason biases are still weighing so heavily in the Top 25 rankings.
Well, I think you just hit the prevailing problem. It's called 'preseason polls'. I've argued with friends forever that preseason polls in FBS should be done away with altogether until a playoff system is implemented. My opinion is that a first poll should not be unveiled until at least 3-4 weeks of the season have passed. Basketball preseason polls aren't as difficult to overcome because of the number of games and the length of the season plus the fact that there is that little thing called the NCAA tournament that makes up for that... :P
But, that's not the way we have it, so we have to make due with what we have. And furthermore, I think the w's and l's have a good way of working themselves out after the first couple of months to allow the pollsters (who, BTW, do a very good job at putting this poll together ;) ) to get a pretty good gauge of who may have been a bit over-rated and who may have been overlooked. Personally, I felt that Wooster may have been a bit too high at #9 to start the season, but I wasn't going to question the experts who vote in the poll. :) I mean, they were unranked to end last season, so to jump all the way to #9 was a bit high IMO. But, I still feel, even though they are on their way out of the top 25 due to the difficulty of their non-conference schedule, that they are most definitely a top-25 caliber team with the ability to make some noise if they are fortunate enough to make it to the dance thanks in very large part most definitely to that difficult non-conference schedule!
Quote from: ScotsFan on December 23, 2009, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 23, 2009, 03:25:02 PM
I think it's a shame that Preseason biases are still weighing so heavily in the Top 25 rankings.
Well, I think you just hit the prevailing problem. It's called 'preseason polls'. I've argued with friends forever that preseason polls in FBS should be done away with altogether until a playoff system is implemented. My opinion is that a first poll should not be unveiled until at least 3-4 weeks of the season have passed. Basketball preseason polls aren't as difficult to overcome because of the number of games and the length of the season plus the fact that there is that little thing called the NCAA tournament that makes up for that... :P
But, that's not the way we have it, so we have to make due with what we have. And furthermore, I think the w's and l's have a good way of working themselves out after the first couple of months to allow the pollsters (who, BTW, do a very good job at putting this poll together ;) ) to get a pretty good gauge of who may have been a bit over-rated and who may have been overlooked. Personally, I felt that Wooster may have been a bit too high at #9 to start the season, but I wasn't going to question the experts who vote in the poll. :) I mean, they were unranked to end last season, so to jump all the way to #9 was a bit high IMO. But, I still feel, even though they are on their way out of the top 25 due to the difficulty of their non-conference schedule, that they are most definitely a top-25 caliber team with the ability to make some noise if they are fortunate enough to make it to the dance thanks in very large part most definitely to that difficult non-conference schedule!
Well if the committee looks at some RPI like numbers, then Wooster should be ranked pretty high because of their strength of schedule (that is if their conference slate doesnt drop them down too much), but they still need to work on that first criteria, which is W's.
Pre-season bias?
Mr Ypsi's Poster's Poll begins after the second Sunday in January.
The poll is open to any fan who will contribute every week.
If you haven't participated in the past, please consider joining this season.
Quote from: ScotsFan on December 23, 2009, 01:42:16 PM
What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? Oh, I don't know. How about playing 3 teams that are or were ranked in the top FIVE in the d3hoops.com top 25 poll.
Phew -- I was beginning to think I was crazy.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2009, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: ScotsFan on December 23, 2009, 01:42:16 PM
What has Wooster done that Anderson hasn't? Oh, I don't know. How about playing 3 teams that are or were ranked in the top FIVE in the d3hoops.com top 25 poll.
Phew -- I was beginning to think I was crazy.
I guess it all depends on what types of lenses you have in your glasses. I have my RPI glasses on right now and they tell me that Hope has the highest RPI value in the country, so they should be ranked #1. #2 Whitewater, 3 WashU, 4 La Crosse, and 5 Alvernia. Completely justified with irrefutable evidence and completely objectvely.
I did this last year, we'll see if I stick with it..........these are strictly in-region records.
1. Hope 2-0
2. Wilmington 9-1
3. Case Western 6-2
3. Heidelberg 6-2
5. Wooster 8-3
6. Bethany 5-2
6. Wittenberg 5-2
6. PSU-Behrend 5-2
----------------------------------------- .700
9. John Carroll 6-3
9. Frostburg State 4-2
11. Thomas More 7-4
12. Hiram 5-3
13. Albion 3-2
------------------------------------------.600
14. Carnegie-Mellon 4-3
15. Trine 5-4
16. Wash & Jeff 5-4
** Wilmington has really been overlooked I think, 9-1 is the strongest record in this region easily. They own a win over JCU and Case Western. Their first loss ocured on the 30th to Thomas More by 2 points.
** Last year 5 in-region losses was the cut-off for the GL 'Pool C' rep Carnegie-Mellon. The most obvious team already up against it a little is JCU. They already have 3 in-region losses and playing in the OAC puts them on the edge. Not a lot of margin for error for a C bid, let alone getting back in the OAC race.
** A couple other teams that have been playoff contending regulars recently find themselves in trouble, Ohio Wesleyan is just 1-6 and Capital is 4-5.
** Ohio Northern sits at 5-5 coming off a crucial loss to Calvin in Arizona. ONU's in-region losses have been by 2, 6, 6, 2 and by 3 in OT. They still have 2 games each with Wilmington and John Carroll remaining and travel to Wilmington this Wednesday.
One noteable game this weekend before the conference races ramp up next week
Jan 2
John Carroll at Bethany
I missed that Thomas Moore upset of Wilmington. The OAC contenders had a rough end to 2009 with JCU's loss as well.
Thomas Moore looks like a tough team to figure out. They have some pretty good wins starting with their win over Wilmington. They also beat Transy fairly convincingly as well as MUC. Then comes the questionable losses. Capital gave them a beat-down by 22 and just 2 days before they took down the best team in the GL Region, they lost to Baldwin Wallace?
This has the makings of being a very interesting race to come out on top of the GL Regional Rankings. As sac mentioned, Wilmington appears to be the team to beat for now. But, I have a feeling that once OAC play gets rolling, Wilmington will start to fall. Hope has no losses at the time, but once again, their body of work is very lacking. Wooster has already played 11 in-region games compared to just 2 for Hope. It's funny, because just a short time ago, Wooster's regional record wasn't all that great. But, now after their fortune of getting Transy in the finals of the Mose Hole, that 8-3 record isn't looking all that bad heading into NCAC play!
This region appears to be deeper and more wide open than I can remember. I wouldn't be surprised to see several different teams atop the rankings once the NCAA starts to release their rankings before the end of the season.
Capital seems to have flipped a switch to turn their season around. After starting out 1-5, they've now won 5 straight after crushing Kenyon this afternoon.
They have a non-conference affair with Ohio Dominican on Tuesday, the Crusaders then have a critical stretch of OAC contests. They host JCU next Sat. and then hit the road at Wilmington and at MUC. They've already lost 3 conference games, so this is going to be critical for Cap to at least win 2 of 3 if they want to keep their suddenly re-kindled conference hopes alive!
Last night's OAC scores
OAC
Mount Union 61 Baldwin-Wallace 82 Final
Ohio Northern 62 Wilmington (Ohio) 73 Final
Muskingum 69 Marietta 73 Final
Otterbein 64 John Carroll 88
Big game this weekend, 1st place Wilmington at 2nd place Heidelberg........a win for Wilmington would put them 2 games up in the OAC race.
Through Wednesday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.667 0.750 0.525 0.6728 010 A C 2-1 7-5 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.909 0.558 0.546 0.6427 015 A C 10-1 11-2 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.667 0.583 0.580 0.6034 044 C 021 2-1 6-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.778 0.548 0.505 0.5946 055 C 026 7-2 8-3 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 05 0.444 0.705 0.501 0.5890 064 C 035 4-5 4-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
GL 06 0.778 0.529 0.485 0.5804 074 C 043 7-2 7-3 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.583 0.615 0.499 0.5784 080 C 046 7-5 8-5 OAC Baldwin-Wallace
GL 08 0.636 0.577 0.512 0.5756 082 C 048 7-4 8-4 OAC John Carroll
GL 09 0.750 0.465 0.592 0.5679 094 C 057 6-2 8-4 OAC Heidelberg
Wooster comes in at #10 and Albion at #11
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 07, 2010, 06:37:37 PM
Through Wednesday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.667 0.750 0.525 0.6728 010 A C 2-1 7-5 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.909 0.558 0.546 0.6427 015 A C 10-1 11-2 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.667 0.583 0.580 0.6034 044 C 021 2-1 6-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.778 0.548 0.505 0.5946 055 C 026 7-2 8-3 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 05 0.444 0.705 0.501 0.5890 064 C 035 4-5 4-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
GL 06 0.778 0.529 0.485 0.5804 074 C 043 7-2 7-3 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.583 0.615 0.499 0.5784 080 C 046 7-5 8-5 OAC Baldwin-Wallace
GL 08 0.636 0.577 0.512 0.5756 082 C 048 7-4 8-4 OAC John Carroll
GL 09 0.750 0.465 0.592 0.5679 094 C 057 6-2 8-4 OAC Heidelberg
Wooster comes in at #10 and Albion at #11
Are these numbers based on overall records or just regional records?
I'm finding it difficult to see how Hope who is 7-5 overall is ranked ahead of Wilmington who is 11-1 overall and furthermore, how 6-6 Calvin jumps from not even in the top 10 to #3 with a win over a 7-5 team? Call me crazy, but I'm not buying that Wooster is the 10th best team in the region either behind the likes of B-WC, Heidelberg, CMU (who the Scots beat head-to-head BTW), etc.
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 08, 2010, 09:54:59 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 07, 2010, 06:37:37 PM
Through Wednesday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.667 0.750 0.525 0.6728 010 A C 2-1 7-5 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.909 0.558 0.546 0.6427 015 A C 10-1 11-2 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.667 0.583 0.580 0.6034 044 C 021 2-1 6-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.778 0.548 0.505 0.5946 055 C 026 7-2 8-3 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 05 0.444 0.705 0.501 0.5890 064 C 035 4-5 4-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
GL 06 0.778 0.529 0.485 0.5804 074 C 043 7-2 7-3 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.583 0.615 0.499 0.5784 080 C 046 7-5 8-5 OAC Baldwin-Wallace
GL 08 0.636 0.577 0.512 0.5756 082 C 048 7-4 8-4 OAC John Carroll
GL 09 0.750 0.465 0.592 0.5679 094 C 057 6-2 8-4 OAC Heidelberg
Wooster comes in at #10 and Albion at #11
Are these numbers based on overall records or just regional records?
I'm finding it difficult to see how Hope who is 7-5 overall is ranked ahead of Wilmington who is 11-1 overall and furthermore, how 6-6 Calvin jumps from not even in the top 10 to #3 with a win over a 7-5 team? Call me crazy, but I'm not buying that Wooster is the 10th best team in the region either behind the likes of B-WC, Heidelberg, CMU (who the Scots beat head-to-head BTW), etc.
These numbers include regional games only and are used as a potential projection of NCAA comittee rankings. I don't know if you still want me to call you crazy, but based on only regional results so far, Wooster probably
is the 10
th best team in the region. Wooster may very well be the best team in the region by season's end.
I guess based on the fact that these rankings are based on in-region games only, it seems as though there should be a criterea for a minimum number of games played to qualify for a regional ranking. It just doesn't seem fair to reward teams like Hope and Calvin who have fewer region games played combined than Wilmington has in regional wins. With only 3 in-region opponents for both Hope and Calvin, they are benefiitting big time by the OWP and the OOWP. These numbers will surely start to drop off significantly now that they are getting into the meat of the MIAA schedule.
I guess that's why I'm wondering why go through all the trouble when these numbers aren't really all that telling at this point of the season? At least for Hope and Calvin anyways...
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 08, 2010, 10:59:57 AM
I guess based on the fact that these rankings are based on in-region games only, it seems as though there should be a criterea for a minimum number of games played to qualify for a regional ranking. It just doesn't seem fair to reward teams like Hope and Calvin who have fewer region games played combined than Wilmington has in regional wins. With only 3 in-region opponents for both Hope and Calvin, they are benefiitting big time by the OWP and the OOWP. These numbers will surely start to drop off significantly now that they are getting into the meat of the MIAA schedule.
I guess that's why I'm wondering why go through all the trouble when these numbers aren't really all that telling at this point of the season? At least for Hope and Calvin anyways...
I guess my question in response is why not? And what is it that numbers aren't telling?
It's not what the numbers aren't telling us. It's the fact that, IMO, Hope's and Calvin's body of work isn't big enough at this point to accurately gauge where they truly stand in the regional rankings. When I see Hope with a 2-1 in-region record ranked ahead of Wilmington with a 10-1 in-region record and Calvin also with a 2-1 in-region record checking in at #3, something doesn't add up. That's all. Just my opinion here, nothing more...
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 08, 2010, 12:06:25 PM
It's not what the numbers aren't telling us. It's the fact that, IMO, Hope's and Calvin's body of work isn't big enough at this point to accurately gauge where they truly stand in the regional rankings. When I see Hope with a 2-1 in-region record ranked ahead of Wilmington with a 10-1 in-region record and Calvin also with a 2-1 in-region record checking in at #3, something doesn't add up. That's all. Just my opinion here, nothing more...
Obviously each set of rankings is just a snapshot in time. I think the rankings are interesting, especially considering this is what the NCAA committee will be looking at, but I don't view them as anything more than "for entertainment purposes only" at this point. Trust me, Hope and Calvin fans aren't under any grand allusions seeing where they are ranked, it works both ways.
At least we have an actual tournament to figure all this stuff out anyway!
Updated through Sunday's games
1. Wilmington 11-1
2. PSU-Behrend 8-2
-----------------------------------------.800
3. Wittenberg 7-2
4. Bethany 9-3
4. Wooster 9-3
4. Calvin 3-1
4. Hope 3-1
8. Thomas More 10-4
8. Albion 5-2
-----------------------------------------.700
10. John Carroll 8-4
10. Heidelberg 6-3
12. Case Western 7-4
12. Wabash 7-4
14. Baldwin-Wallace 8-5
15. Frostburg St. 6-4
----------------------------------------.600
* With Hope and Calvin having now played almost a handful of in-region games you feel at least like things have normalized a little bit more.
* Huge losses for the UAA Great Lakes members Case Western and Carnegie-Mellon, both were swept by Rochester and Emory and Carnegie dropped all four in-region games since the last update. Now with 7 losses and 2 games with WashU Pool C seems out of reach for Carnegie.
* The OAC race is Wilmington's to lose already with a 2 game lead, chasers JCU, Heidelberg and Ohio Northern all have razor thin margin's of error remaining in the 'C' chase.
* The NCAC should see Wooster and Witt both add two to their in-region win totals, both face Allegheny this week. Wabash should pick up two wins as well. All other NCAC Pool C chasers have quickly disappeared.
* The MIAA sees Albion face Kzoo at the top of the league, but both Albion and Calvin should come away with 2 wins this week. Hope faces a desperate Olivet team on Wed. in a very important league contest for the Dutchmen.
* In the Presidents, its a battle at the top with Bethany hosting Thomas More
Key games this week
Wednesday night
Heidelberg @ John Carroll
Thomas More @ Bethany
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
* Huge losses for the UAA Great Lakes members Case Western and Carnegie-Mellon, both were swept by Rochester and Emory and Carnegie dropped all four in-region games since the last update. Now with 7 losses and 2 games with WashU Pool C seems out of reach for Carnegie.
Carnegie isnt doing anything this year. They are probably the worst team in the UAA right now. Carnegie will be fortunate to get to double-digit wins this year.
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
* The NCAC should see Wooster and Witt both add two to their in-region win totals, both face Allegheny this week.
Never count your Gators before they're flushed. Both games are in Meadville, and 'Gheny has a reasonable chance to win either, or even both. Plus Witt has a non-trivial game at Denison, who is not as bad as their terrible record would suggest.
Quote from: David Collinge on January 11, 2010, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
* The NCAC should see Wooster and Witt both add two to their in-region win totals, both face Allegheny this week.
Never count your Gators before they're flushed. Both games are in Meadville, and 'Gheny has a reasonable chance to win either, or even both. Plus Witt has a non-trivial game at Denison, who is not as bad as their terrible record would suggest.
:D
As for the rest of your quote, you're taking my job David. ;)
I agree on your assessments BTW. Wooster never seems to play well at Allegheny and with the Gators having a senior laden team that has shown signs of being a good team this year, I see no reason to believe that 'Gheny won't come ready to play in both games.
Didn't mean to suggest Allegheny would be an easy win, but on the whole you'd have to make Woo/Witt favorites on both nights regardless of location. Mostly I thought it interesting both played 'gheny this week.
Quote from: sac on January 11, 2010, 11:29:24 PM
Didn't mean to suggest Allegheny would be an easy win, but on the whole you'd have to make Woo/Witt favorites on both nights regardless of location. Mostly I thought it interesting both played 'gheny this week.
I thought that as well. I'm sure that 'Gheny wasn't all too pleased about seeing those 2 back to back on their schedule even if they are home games for the Gators.
Big doings in the OAC last night, Heidelberg beat JCU 85-81......this makes 5 in-region losses for JCU meaning their Pool C chances are on life support.
Capital upset Wilmington, which cuts Wilmington's 2 game lead to 1.
Thomas More beat Bethany 90-88
I'm not going to go through and rank all of the top teams. Instead I chose to rank those with records still above .700 in-region. They are as follows:
1. Wilmington 10-2
2. Wittenberg 8-2
3. Calvin 4-1
4. Wooster 10-3
5. PSU-Behrend 7-3
5. Heidelberg 7-3
----------------------------------------- .700
I think that's all of them. I didn't really do a thorough job of research, so feel free to add any I might have neglected.
GL RPI Rankings through games with scores reported to d3hoops.com at 11 am est. Currently projecting only 4 teams into the tournament, easily the fewest of any region. Numbers are based on in region competition only.
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.846 0.540 0.528 0.6136 027 A C 11-2 12-3 OAC Wilmington
GL 02 0.800 0.529 0.526 0.5963 045 A C-2 4-1 8-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 03 0.818 0.505 0.490 0.5796 067 C 037 9-2 9-3 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 04 0.700 0.513 0.560 0.5717 076 C 043 7-3 9-5 OAC Heidelberg
GL 05 0.769 0.485 0.548 0.5715 077 A 10-3 10-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.750 0.506 0.494 0.5641 086 C 050 6-2 9-5 MIAA Albion
GL 07 0.615 0.571 0.492 0.5625 092 C 055 8-5 9-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 08 0.636 0.550 0.500 0.5590 099 C 061 7-4 8-5 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 09 0.333 0.697 0.503 0.5576 103 C 065 4-8 4-8 UAA Carnegie Mellon
GL 10 Thomas Moore
GL 11 Hope
GL 12 Wittenberg
Through Sunday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.833 0.543 0.504 0.6061 029 A C 5-1 9-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 02 0.786 0.528 0.524 0.5914 044 A C-2 11-3 12-4 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.833 0.500 0.494 0.5817 058 C 031 10-2 10-3 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 04 0.786 0.477 0.539 0.5700 075 A 11-3 11-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 05 0.643 0.570 0.495 0.5695 077 C 043 9-5 10-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 06 0.727 0.496 0.554 0.5684 079 C 045 8-3 10-5 OAC Heidelberg
GL 07 0.778 0.484 0.502 0.5619 090 C 053 7-2 10-5 MIAA Albion
GL 08 0.750 0.490 0.486 0.5537 105 A 12-4 12-4 PrAC Thomas Moore
GL 09 0.667 0.515 0.516 0.5532 106 C 066 8-4 9-5 UAA Case Western Reserve
Notables:
GL 10 Wittenberg
GL 11 Carnegie Mellon
GL 15 Hope
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 14, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
I'm not going to go through and rank all of the top teams. Instead I chose to rank those with records still above .700 in-region. They are as follows:
1. Wilmington 10-2
2. Wittenberg 8-2
3. Calvin 4-1
4. Wooster 10-3
5. PSU-Behrend 7-3
5. Heidelberg 7-3
----------------------------------------- .700
I think that's all of them. I didn't really do a thorough job of research, so feel free to add any I might have neglected.
Could have saved yourself some time by flipping back one more page :)
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
Updated through Sunday's games
1. Wilmington 11-1
2. PSU-Behrend 8-2
-----------------------------------------.800
3. Wittenberg 7-2
4. Bethany 9-3
4. Wooster 9-3
4. Calvin 3-1
4. Hope 3-1
8. Thomas More 10-4
8. Albion 5-2
-----------------------------------------.700
10. John Carroll 8-4
10. Heidelberg 6-3
12. Case Western 7-4
12. Wabash 7-4
14. Baldwin-Wallace 8-5
15. Frostburg St. 6-4
----------------------------------------.600
Updated through Sunday Jan 17 games
1. PSU-Behrend 10-2
1. Calvin 5-1
3. Wittenberg 9-2
-----------------------------------------.800
4. Wilmington 11-3
4. Wooster 11-3
6. Albion 7-2
7. Thomas More 12-4
8. Heidelberg 8-3
-----------------------------------------.700
9. Bethany 9-4
9. Wabash 9-4
11. Case Western 8-4
11. Hope 4-2
13. John Carroll 9-5
14. Baldwin-Wallace 9-6
----------------------------------------.600
* Quite a shakeup this week
* As Knightslappy's above post suggests, not a good year for Pool C's from the Great Lakes
* Only one midweek OAC conference game this week, so not much should change for those teams. Wilmington plays BW on Saturday.....kind of a survival game for BW.
Key games this week.........biggest week of the season thus far for important regional and league matchups
Wednesday
Hope @ Albion
Wittenberg @ Wabash
Friday
Washington-Stl @ Case Western
Saturday
Albion @ Calvin
Wooster @ Wittenberg
Looks like Albion and Witt have the toughest schedules as both teams have 2 tough games on their slates for the week.
We will get to see if Albion is truly a threat to chase after the MIAA this week. And a win for the Britons on Wednesday at Kresge could really throw a wrench in Hope's MIAA championship thoughts. With Hope already 2 games back of both Calvin and Albion, Wed. is pretty much a must win game for the Dutch.
Witt will truly be tested this week and we will see if the loss of their conference POY candidate, Greg Hill will finally start to prove costly for the Tigers. Allegheny was a test for the Tigers and they passed that with flying colors. But beating Wabash at Chadwick is never an easy task and Wabash has really been a different team at home. The NCAC conference race could either widen this week for Wooster or it could become extremely tight by the end of Saturday's games.
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 18, 2010, 09:27:35 AM
We will get to see if Albion is truly a threat to chase after the MIAA this week. And a win for the Britons on Wednesday at Kresge could really throw a wrench in Hope's MIAA championship thoughts. With Hope already 2 games back of both Calvin and Albion, Wed. is pretty much a must win game for the Dutch.
The first regional rankings are coming out at a time when the picture may begin to clear a bit, at least as far as the MIAA is concerned. Calvin will have played Albion and their second conference game against Hope by Feb. 3 with the return trip to Olivet that night.
Through Wednesday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.857 0.500 0.509 0.503 0.5916 042 A C-2 6-1 10-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 02 0.786 0.527 0.523 0.526 0.5907 045 A C-2 11-3 12-4 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.833 0.500 0.489 0.496 0.5806 058 C 033 10-2 10-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 04 0.643 0.575 0.492 0.547 0.5710 075 C 043 9-5 10-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.714 0.516 0.519 0.517 0.5664 083 C 049 5-2 9-6 MIAA Hope
GL 06 0.800 0.461 0.534 0.485 0.5638 084 A 12-3 12-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 07 0.765 0.469 0.490 0.476 0.5483 105 A 13-4 13-4 PrAC Thomas Moore
GL 08 0.667 0.490 0.544 0.508 0.5477 106 C 066 8-4 10-6 OAC Heidelberg
GL 09 0.750 0.470 0.499 0.480 0.5473 107 C 067 9-3 13-3 NCAC Wittenberg
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
Updated: 1/21/2010
In: Hope (5), Wittenberg (9)
Out: #7 Albion (11), #9 Case Western Reserve (10)
Notable: Wabash (12)
Updated through Sunday Jan 24 games
1. Calvin 7-1
2. Wooster 13-3
3. Wilmington 12-3
-----------------------------------------.800
4. PSU-Behrend 11-3
5. Hope 6-2
6. Bethany 11-4
6. Wabash 11-4
8. Thomas More 13-5
-----------------------------------------.700
9. Heidelberg 9-4
9. Wittenberg 9-4
11. John Carroll 10-5
12. Albion 7-4
----------------------------------------.600
13. Case Western 8-6
14. Baldwin-Wallace 9-7
14. Capital 9-7
14. Grove City 9-7
** Losses really beginning to pile up, we went from 8 teams with 3 or fewer losses to just 4. A lot of teams on the brink with the entire 2nd half of most conference seasons to go.
** Witt and Albion took the biggest hits losing twice in the week to their conference challengers.
** As knightslappy's chart suggests its really looking like the only chance for 'Pool C's' from this region will come if there are upsets in the conference tournaments with the regular season champs all the likely best candidates.
Saturday
Calvin @ Hope
Through Sunday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.875 0.543 0.502 0.529 0.6158 018 A C 7-1 11-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 02 0.800 0.545 0.526 0.539 0.6041 031 A C 12-3 13-4 OAC Wilmington
GL 03 0.667 0.581 0.499 0.554 0.5818 056 C 033 10-5 11-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 04 0.750 0.526 0.517 0.523 0.5797 060 C 036 6-2 11-6 MIAA Hope
GL 05 0.813 0.483 0.522 0.496 0.5753 066 A 13-3 13-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.786 0.468 0.502 0.479 0.5560 095 C 057 11-3 11-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.727 0.503 0.484 0.497 0.5544 097 N/A 8-3 11-7 PrAC Geneva
GL 08 0.692 0.514 0.484 0.504 0.5512 100 C 061 9-4 13-4 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.692 0.475 0.553 0.501 0.5488 106 C 067 9-4 11-6 OAC Heidelberg
10. Albion
11. Baldwin-Wallace
12. Thomas More
13. Wabash
Geneva is not eligible to be ranked by the NCAA due to their provisional status, so you can go ahead and move everyone behind them up a spot.
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.813 0.525 0.527 0.526 0.5974 031 A C 13-3 14-4 OAC Wilmington
GL 02 0.889 0.480 0.507 0.489 0.5889 043 A C-2 8-1 12-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 03 0.688 0.582 0.499 0.554 0.5875 047 C 027 11-5 12-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 04 0.778 0.525 0.500 0.517 0.5819 055 C 032 7-2 12-6 MIAA Hope
GL 05 0.824 0.481 0.516 0.493 0.5755 063 A 14-3 14-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.800 0.463 0.499 0.475 0.5559 094 C 057 12-3 12-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.714 0.459 0.551 0.490 0.5457 105 C 067 10-4 12-6 OAC Heidelberg
GL 08 0.722 0.471 0.507 0.483 0.5429 114 A 13-5 13-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 09 0.714 0.483 0.490 0.485 0.5425 115 C 075 10-4 14-4 NCAC Wittenberg
10. Case Western Reserve
11. Albion
12. Baldwin-Wallace
A good sized gap has formed between #6 Penn State-Behrend and #5 Wooster. I think Wooster and above all still have Pool C chances, though Wooster's chances may be pretty slim.
Should Hope beat Calvin on Saturday, they'll find themselves in the thick of the Pool C race (and ahead of the Knights in the rankings).
Wow, look how Calvin's OWP, OOWP, SOS and RPI were affected by playing the now 0-12 in-region Alma Scots Wednesday.
They went from #18 to #43 nationally.
Quote from: sac on January 29, 2010, 01:01:49 AM
Wow, look how Calvin's OWP, OOWP, SOS and RPI were affected by playing the now 0-12 in-region Alma Scots Wednesday.
They went from #18 to #43 nationally.
...And it'll really hurt if they "get" to play them in the MIAA tournamnet opening round. The Scots could potentially contribute a solid 0-51 to Calvin's final OWP.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2010, 02:07:24 PM
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.813 0.525 0.527 0.526 0.5974 031 A C 13-3 14-4 OAC Wilmington
GL 02 0.889 0.480 0.507 0.489 0.5889 043 A C-2 8-1 12-6 MIAA Calvin
GL 03 0.688 0.582 0.499 0.554 0.5875 047 C 027 11-5 12-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 04 0.778 0.525 0.500 0.517 0.5819 055 C 032 7-2 12-6 MIAA Hope
GL 05 0.824 0.481 0.516 0.493 0.5755 063 A 14-3 14-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.800 0.463 0.499 0.475 0.5559 094 C 057 12-3 12-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.714 0.459 0.551 0.490 0.5457 105 C 067 10-4 12-6 OAC Heidelberg
GL 08 0.722 0.471 0.507 0.483 0.5429 114 A 13-5 13-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 09 0.714 0.483 0.490 0.485 0.5425 115 C 075 10-4 14-4 NCAC Wittenberg
10. Case Western Reserve
11. Albion
12. Baldwin-Wallace
A good sized gap has formed between #6 Penn State-Behrend and #5 Wooster. I think Wooster and above all still have Pool C chances, though Wooster's chances may be pretty slim.
Should Hope beat Calvin on Saturday, they'll find themselves in the thick of the Pool C race (and ahead of the Knights in the rankings).
KnightSlappy - Thanks for posting these regular updates for all GL region teams - it is appreciated. k+
Here's what the GL Region looks like through the weekend:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.800 0.548 0.499 0.532 0.5986 029 A C 8-2 13-6 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.706 0.570 0.500 0.547 0.5868 042 A C-2 12-5 13-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 03 0.765 0.520 0.525 0.522 0.5827 049 C 027 13-4 14-5 OAC Wilmington
GL 04 0.800 0.509 0.502 0.507 0.5799 053 C 030 8-2 12-7 MIAA Calvin
GL 05 0.833 0.465 0.512 0.481 0.5689 071 A 15-3 15-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.813 0.469 0.498 0.479 0.5624 083 C 048 13-3 13-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.737 0.468 0.506 0.480 0.5445 114 A 14-5 14-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 08 0.778 0.440 0.503 0.461 0.5402 119 C 079 14-4 14-5 PrAC Bethany
GL 09 0.556 0.543 0.508 0.531 0.5374 124 C 084 10-8 11-8 OAC Baldwin-Wallace
GL 10 Ohio Northern
GL 11 Wittenberg
Hope did themselves a nice service by beating Calvin on Saturday. Calvin now has some work left to do to climb back into Pool C contention.
I still feel that #5 Wooster on up all have chances for Pool C. Everybody else will need to win their conferences automatic bid to get in.
A better measure of where Hope stands will come Wednesday after playing in-region winless Alma, now 0-13. Thats a big hit to the numbers.
Thats the lowest rated team remaining on the schedule.
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2010, 11:12:10 PM
A better measure of where Hope stands will come Wednesday after playing in-region winless Alma, now 0-13. Thats a big hit to the numbers.
Thats the lowest rated team remaining on the schedule.
This year more than ever I am realizing the importance of rooting for our MIAA breathren in the non-conference/pre-season portion of the schedule.
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2010, 11:12:10 PM
A better measure of where Hope stands will come Wednesday after playing in-region winless Alma, now 0-13. Thats a big hit to the numbers.
Thats the lowest rated team remaining on the schedule.
You're right...
Plugging in a Hope win and an Alma loss (not touching any other game) brings Hope's RPI down to the 0.579 range, and drops them below Calvin.
Of course, other games will affect the ranking, but it looks like the top 4-5 in the region will have a very tight race.
We also get to see Wilmington vs. John Carroll this week.
Updated through Sunday Jan 31 games
1. Wooster 15-3
2. PSU-Behrend 13-3
3. Hope 8-2
3. Calvin 8-2
-----------------------------------------.800
5. Bethany 14-4
6. Wilmington 13-4
7. Thomas More 14-5
8. Wabash 12-5
8. John Carroll 12-5
-----------------------------------------.700
10. Heidelberg 10-5
10. Wittenberg 10-5
12. Grove City 11-7
-----------------------------------------.600
13. Adrian 7-5
14. Allegheny 8-6
15. Baldwin-Wallace 10-8
15. Capital 10-8
17. Albion 7-6
18. Ohio Wesleyan 9-8
** 3 of the 4 GL conferences have either ties at the top or one game separating 1st from 2nd.
MIAA
1. Calvin 7-1
2. Hope 6-2
3. Adrian 5-3
OAC
1. Wilmington 9-3
1. John Carroll 9-3
3. Ohio Northern 8-4
3. Heidelberg 8-4
PrAC
1. Grove City 7-2
2. Bethany 6-2
2. Thomas More 6-2
NCAC
1. Wooster 10-0
2. Wabash 7-3
2. Allegheny 7-3
2. Ohio Wesleyan 7-3
Key Games
Wednesday
Medaille 19-1 @ PSU-Behrend
Allegheny @ Wooster
Wittenberg @ Ohio Wesleyan
Heidelberg @ Bald Wally
Saturday
Bald Wally @ Capital
Wilmington @ John Carroll
Grove City @ Bethany
Sunday
Wooster @ Wabash
Forgot to add Wilmington begins its 'make or break' stretch for the OAC title with games @JCU, @Ohio Northern, Heidelberg and @Capital in succession starting Saturday.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2010, 10:28:02 PM
Here's what the GL Region looks like through the weekend:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.800 0.548 0.499 0.532 0.5986 029 A C 8-2 13-6 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.706 0.570 0.500 0.547 0.5868 042 A C-2 12-5 13-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 03 0.765 0.520 0.525 0.522 0.5827 049 C 027 13-4 14-5 OAC Wilmington
GL 04 0.800 0.509 0.502 0.507 0.5799 053 C 030 8-2 12-7 MIAA Calvin
GL 05 0.833 0.465 0.512 0.481 0.5689 071 A 15-3 15-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 06 0.813 0.469 0.498 0.479 0.5624 083 C 048 13-3 13-4 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.737 0.468 0.506 0.480 0.5445 114 A 14-5 14-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 08 0.778 0.440 0.503 0.461 0.5402 119 C 079 14-4 14-5 PrAC Bethany
GL 09 0.556 0.543 0.508 0.531 0.5374 124 C 084 10-8 11-8 OAC Baldwin-Wallace
GL 10 Ohio Northern
GL 11 Wittenberg
The NCAA's first regional rankings come out today, ranking the top 6 in the region.
Here's my guess at what we'll see:
1. Hope (MIAA) -- A solid SOS and a nice win percentage to go with it. Two wins against ranked Calvin will also help them out.
2. Wilmington (OAC) -- Their win head to head with John Carroll will likely keep them ahead of the Blue Streaks... for now.
3. John Carroll (OAC) -- They've beaten Wooster, and their tough schedule should boost them despite their less than desired win percentage.
4. Calvin (MIAA) -- Calvin's one win over Hope, a tougher schedule, and win over Albion (common opponent) should keep them ahead of Wooster. The win over likely Midwest ranked Carthage would also help in the secondary criteria, should it come to that.
5. Wooster (NCAC) -- Wooster's got the best win percentage in the region, but they have had a relatively easy schedule to date, and don't own a win over any of the other ranked GL teams.
6. Penn State-Behrend (AMCC) -- They've got a nice win percentage, but the cupcake schedule and lack of a quality win will keep them low.
Thomas More may sneak in replacing PSU-B at the #6 spot via their win over Wilmington, but I think the Behrend Lions have enough of a buffer right now that that won't happen.
John Carroll and Calvin could trade places depending on how highly the regional committee values win percentage over schedule difficulty.
Great Lakes Region - Feb. 3
1. Wooster 15-3
2. Wilmington (Ohio) 13-4
3. Hope 8-2
4. Calvin 8-2
5. Penn State-Behrend 13-3
6. Thomas More 14-5
First glance tells me it is all about the record with this committee.
http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/020310aae.html
Wilmington's in-region win % is lower than Hope and Calvin.......and their SOS is lower than Hope.
head to head
Hope beat Calvin
Calvin beat Hope
Hope beat Calvin
Wilmington lost to Thomas More
results vs common in-region opponents
Wilmington beat Ohio Northern
Calvin beat Ohio Northern
Wooster lost to Albion
Calvin beat Albion
Hope beat Albion
Hope beat Alma
Calvin beat Alma
Hope beat Adrian
Calvin beat Adrian
Hope beat Kalamazoo
Calvin beat Kalamazoo
Olivet beat Hope
Calvin beat Olivet
Hope beat Trine
Calvin beat Trine
results vs reginally ranked teams
Wilmington lost to Thomas More
Hope beat Wheaton
Carthage beat Hope
Calvin beat Carthage
Wheaton beat Calvin
Hope beat Calvin
Calvin beat Hope
Hope beat Calvin
<shrugs>
Maybe body of work might come into play a bit? Wooster has played 8 more regional games than both Hope and Calvin and only has one more loss while having a whopping 7 more wins. And the majority of Hope's and Calvin's regional opponents are also conference opponents. Not so for the others in the regional rankings. And that SOS you're referring to has only been bolstered by the fact that Calvin and Hope have played each other 3 times?! Of their miniscule 10 regional games each has played, 3 of those 10 have been against each other which totally pads the stats from a SOS perspective IMO. Maybe the NCAA is taking note of that?
Besides, Calvin's loss tonight should put an end to them being in the discussion for now...
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 03, 2010, 09:28:25 PM
Maybe body of work might come into play a bit? Wooster has played 8 more regional games than both Hope and Calvin and only has one more loss while having a whopping 7 more wins. And the majority of Hope's and Calvin's regional opponents are also conference opponents. Not so for the others in the regional rankings. And that SOS you're referring to has only been bolstered by the fact that Calvin and Hope have played each other 3 times?! Of their miniscule 10 regional games each has played, 3 of those 10 have been against each other which totally pads the stats from a SOS perspective IMO. Maybe the NCAA is taking note of that?
Besides, Calvin's loss tonight should put an end to them being in the discussion for now...
I don't understand how playing the same team is considered "padding the stats." They still have to play the game, right? That's three games against a tough team.
Looks like the committee isn't counting Olivet's win over Finlandia as in-region.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 03, 2010, 09:28:25 PM
Maybe body of work might come into play a bit? Wooster has played 8 more regional games than both Hope and Calvin and only has one more loss while having a whopping 7 more wins. And the majority of Hope's and Calvin's regional opponents are also conference opponents. Not so for the others in the regional rankings. And that SOS you're referring to has only been bolstered by the fact that Calvin and Hope have played each other 3 times?! Of their miniscule 10 regional games each has played, 3 of those 10 have been against each other which totally pads the stats from a SOS perspective IMO. Maybe the NCAA is taking note of that?
Besides, Calvin's loss tonight should put an end to them being in the discussion for now...
Which is totally wiped out by playing winless Alma 2 times (3 for the unfortunate champion)
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2010, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 03, 2010, 09:28:25 PM
Maybe body of work might come into play a bit? Wooster has played 8 more regional games than both Hope and Calvin and only has one more loss while having a whopping 7 more wins. And the majority of Hope's and Calvin's regional opponents are also conference opponents. Not so for the others in the regional rankings. And that SOS you're referring to has only been bolstered by the fact that Calvin and Hope have played each other 3 times?! Of their miniscule 10 regional games each has played, 3 of those 10 have been against each other which totally pads the stats from a SOS perspective IMO. Maybe the NCAA is taking note of that?
Besides, Calvin's loss tonight should put an end to them being in the discussion for now...
Which is totally wiped out by playing winless Alma 2 times (3 for the unfortunate champion)
Exactly. I feel if anything Hope and Calvin should get a pity vote for having Alma destroy their record. Of course winning the MIAA tourney and getting an automatic bid is the goal but avoiding playing Alma in the first round of the MIAA tourney would be nice too. Either Hope or Calvin will get stuck playing Alma three times and be left with a 0-51 record for SOS just from Alma.
Keep in mind that the regional committee (who do the regional rankings) and the national committee (who select the Pool Cs) are not the same folks, and they may have entirely different ways of looking at the data. Also keep in mind how the Pool C process works: one team per region under consideration at any one time, in order of the regional rankings. If the national committee runs the numbers in a KnightSlappy sort of way, it won't matter how much they like Hope or Calvin or Behrend or whoever; nobody gets a Pool C bid before Wooster if they are #1 on the list. Upshot: everyone in the GL with a Pool C hope had better pray that Wooster wins their conference tournament.
(Of course, Wooster won't be the GL#1 if they don't win the NCAC tournament, but still...)
#4 Calvin and #5 PSU-Behrend took losses tonight.
Maybe if poor Hope and Calvin had MORE regional games, their numbers wouldn't take such a hit everytime they play winless Alma.
And it's not like Wooster is scoring big points having to play the EC with their whopping 3 wins twice or Kenyon and their impressive 4 wins twice. And Trust me. Oberlin has been Wooster's Alma plenty of times over the years so you're not going to get any sympathy votes from me... (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.scout.com%2Fmedia%2Fforums%2Femoticons%2Fnoidea.gif&hash=d0853e7250ffe0f662a746329d301aa06dd4ee9f)
I spent most of the night "in the basement" working on my calculations. I made a few tweaks to try to line up with the regional rankings better. I tweaked the way OWP and OOWP is calculate to match the numbers reported by the committee, and I also added in an RPI50 column. I'm now using this (a 50-50 WP to SOS ratio) to calculate rank and Pool C position.
Here's how it looks with Wednesday's games added in:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI50 RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.842 0.488 0.510 0.496 0.669 0.582 027 A C 16-3 16-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.818 0.521 0.509 0.517 0.668 0.592 029 A C 9-2 14-6 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.778 0.503 0.530 0.512 0.645 0.578 042 A C 14-4 15-5 OAC Wilmington
GL 04 0.727 0.564 0.488 0.538 0.633 0.586 056 C 022 8-3 12-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 05 0.765 0.491 0.495 0.492 0.629 0.560 062 C 027 13-4 13-5 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 06 0.706 0.563 0.509 0.545 0.625 0.585 066 C 030 12-5 14-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 07 0.750 0.478 0.505 0.487 0.618 0.553 073 A 15-5 15-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 08 0.737 0.440 0.500 0.460 0.598 0.529 094 C 055 14-5 14-6 PrAC Bethany
GL 09 0.688 0.506 0.495 0.503 0.595 0.549 096 C 057 11-5 15-5 NCAC Wittenberg
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
RPI50: 50% WP and 50% SOS
RPI: 25% WP and 75% SOS
Updated: 2/4/2010
This new 50-50 ratio seemed to do a better job across the regions in ranking teams (though I stupidly updated to include games through Wednesday before I fully checked it out).
If this is more like what the selection committee will look at, the GL's Pool C chances may not be as bad as we originally thought. Even with the loss last night, it still has Calvin as #22 in Pool C.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 04, 2010, 08:46:37 AM
Maybe if poor Hope and Calvin had MORE regional games, their numbers wouldn't take such a hit everytime they play winless Alma.
And it's not like Wooster is scoring big points having to play the EC with their whopping 3 wins twice or Kenyon and their impressive 4 wins twice. And Trust me. Oberlin has been Wooster's Alma plenty of times over the years so you're not going to get any sympathy votes from me... (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.scout.com%2Fmedia%2Fforums%2Femoticons%2Fnoidea.gif&hash=d0853e7250ffe0f662a746329d301aa06dd4ee9f)
I'm not going to rehash how difficult it is for Hope and Calvin to get regional games........we've been over it a billion times. You Ohio schools have it good and easy.......you've got 4 more regional games built in to your schedules by being in a bigger conference, and every OAC school is closer to you than any OAC or NCAC school is for the MIAA. You simply have more and easier options.
When the season is over, Hope and Calvin will either have 18 or 19 in-region games, thats fine.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2010, 10:07:43 AM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 04, 2010, 08:46:37 AM
Maybe if poor Hope and Calvin had MORE regional games, their numbers wouldn't take such a hit everytime they play winless Alma.
And it's not like Wooster is scoring big points having to play the EC with their whopping 3 wins twice or Kenyon and their impressive 4 wins twice. And Trust me. Oberlin has been Wooster's Alma plenty of times over the years so you're not going to get any sympathy votes from me... (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.scout.com%2Fmedia%2Fforums%2Femoticons%2Fnoidea.gif&hash=d0853e7250ffe0f662a746329d301aa06dd4ee9f)
I'm not going to rehash how difficult it is for Hope and Calvin to get regional games........we've been over it a billion times. You Ohio schools have it good and easy.......you've got 4 more regional games built in to your schedules by being in a bigger conference, and every OAC school is closer to you than any OAC or NCAC school is for the MIAA. You simply have more and easier options.
When the season is over, Hope and Calvin will either have 18 or 19 in-region games, thats fine.
I have the solution, follow me with this one:
-The Asian Carp invasion of Lake Michigan creates such havoc that the government decides to just fill the whole thing with dirt and concrete.
-New highway systems are built linking Western Michigan and Chicago/Wisconsin thereby opening up a plethora of additional schools to fall within the 200 mile travel distance.
-Already annual games with Wheaton and Carthage become in region for Calvin. Hope gains the additional regional game with Carthage.
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
All of Indiana is in-region for MIAA schools due to the fact that Michigan and Indiana are in the same administrative region.
Quote from: d3hoops.com FAQRegion 3: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia.
Good to see that Calvin can schedule all of those Puerto Rico schools for regional contests but Wheaton doesn't count...
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 01:20:50 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
All of Indiana is in-region for MIAA schools due to the fact that Michigan and Indiana are in the same administrative region.
Quote from: d3hoops.com FAQRegion 3: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia.
Good to see that Calvin can schedule all of those Puerto Rico schools for regional contests but Wheaton doesn't count...
Yeah, those arbitrary cut-off points can make for some weirdness. To turn it around, Wheaton could play in-region games against Hawaii or Alaska schools (if any existed in d3! ;)), but Calvin doesn't count!
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Only Manchester, Anderson is 230 miles + from Holland, further from Grand Rapids.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2010, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Only Manchester, Anderson is 230 miles + from Holland, further from Grand Rapids.
Still, ALL Indiana and Ohio schools are 'in region', (though often VERY far away).
It's a shame the NCAA won't carve out some specific, limited exemptions. In the MIAA case, that would be Chicago-land schools are automatically in region.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2010, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Only Manchester, Anderson is 230 miles + from Holland, further from Grand Rapids.
To be fair, I didn't do road miles...I just drew a 200 mile radius around GR and Holland. Anderson was close to the edge...not surprised the road miles go a little over 200. Either way, Anderson is in region. :)
It is a little silly that MIAA teams can't get regional results from games against the CCIW. It wasn't long ago that they changed the regional criteria to include these administrative regions...why not let regional games include games played against teams from states that you share a border with? Essentially the same idea as the administrative regions, but doesn't cut teams off arbitrarily. Does that make too much sense?
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2010, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Only Manchester, Anderson is 230 miles + from Holland, further from Grand Rapids.
To be fair, I didn't do road miles...I just drew a 200 mile radius around GR and Holland. Anderson was close to the edge...not surprised the road miles go a little over 200. Either way, Anderson is in region. :)
It is a little silly that MIAA teams can't get regional results from games against the CCIW. It wasn't long ago that they changed the regional criteria to include these administrative regions...why not let regional games include games played against teams from states that you share a border with? Essentially the same idea as the administrative regions, but doesn't cut teams off arbitrarily. Does that make too much sense?
That still wouldn't work for MIAA and Chicago - Indiana gets in the way! :P
Although, if they recognized state boundaries that are out in Lake Michigan ...! ;)
When has the NCAA done anything that made too much sense wrt D3 athletics? :P I mean, what doesn't make sense to include Puerto Rico and the wealth of D3 programs they have to offer in our administrative region, and leave out the Chicagoland and their sparse availability of D3 programs in proximity to the D3 Siberia that is the MIAA??? ::)
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2010, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 04, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: realist on February 04, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
How many of the HCAC schools in IN are within the 200 mile rule for Calvin or Hope?
I think just Anderson and Manchester...however, if it's regional games you're looking for, any school in Indiana would count as Indiana and Michigan are in the same administrative region.
Only Manchester, Anderson is 230 miles + from Holland, further from Grand Rapids.
To be fair, I didn't do road miles...I just drew a 200 mile radius around GR and Holland. Anderson was close to the edge...not surprised the road miles go a little over 200. Either way, Anderson is in region. :)
It is a little silly that MIAA teams can't get regional results from games against the CCIW. It wasn't long ago that they changed the regional criteria to include these administrative regions...why not let regional games include games played against teams from states that you share a border with? Essentially the same idea as the administrative regions, but doesn't cut teams off arbitrarily. Does that make too much sense?
This is actually how D2 does it with special provisions for some of their more isolated states........including Michigan and Minnesota which they allow as in-region.
D2 is of course much smaller but their conferences are generally larger...meaning more games already built in.
Coming into this discussion late, it is not my intention to be argumentative but one other HCAC school is within 200 miles of all the MIAA schools, and that is Defiance.
The furthest distance is 198 miles from campus to campus with Hope.
The joys of many years as a med rep covering so MI, no IN and nw OH and mileage declarations for IRS calculations and Runzheimer. Thank you Rand McNally road calculator. ;)
Quote from: cave2bens on February 04, 2010, 09:04:29 PM
Coming into this discussion late, it is not my intention to be argumentative but one other HCAC school is within 200 miles of all the MIAA schools, and that is Defiance.
The furthest distance is 198 miles from campus to campus with Hope.
The joys of many years as a med rep covering so MI, no IN and nw OH and mileage declarations for IRS calculations and Runzheimer. Thank you Rand McNally road calculator. ;)
Yeah it is, but the question was about the Indiana schools, not the Hearland Conference schools.
I realize that was "Realist's" original inquiry, Sac. Response was aimed toward lamentations about lack of opportunity for in-region possibilities on pages 33 and 34 and not a back-handed slight to either a fellow caveman or yourself.
Sorry about the dustup. I forgot about the administrative region aspect, and knew the status of Defiance. :)
I have always thought that the state borders concept was highly arbitarary. If the goal is to help establish larger "in region" areas for teams my thought is why not use a different base criteria for who is "in region" for each school. Simply say the nearest 75 or 100 D3 schools to your school (by road miles) are your "in region" eligible opponents.
Using this method every school falls under the same standard, and arcane boundaries do not exist.
Quote from: realist on February 06, 2010, 11:09:34 AM
Sorry about the dustup. I forgot about the administrative region aspect, and knew the status of Defiance. :)
I have always thought that the state borders concept was highly arbitarary. If the goal is to help establish larger "in region" areas for teams my thought is why not use a different base criteria for who is "in region" for each school. Simply say the nearest 75 or 100 D3 schools to your school (by road miles) are your "in region" eligible opponents.
Using this method every school falls under the same standard, and arcane boundaries do not exist.
I thought of this too, but it really would be an administrative nightmare. It would (probably) take lots of work to get this right, and it would have to be repeated every year as teams join (or leave) d3.
I really like the adjoining state rule, similar to D2.
I can just imagine, though, that if D3 adds an adjoining state rule, they wont coun't the MI/IL border in the lake. Then Carthage would become in region for Calvin, but that darned Wheaton game still wouldn't count! ;D :D
Quote from: realist on February 06, 2010, 11:09:34 AM
Sorry about the dustup. I forgot about the administrative region aspect, and knew the status of Defiance. :)
I have always thought that the state borders concept was highly arbitarary. If the goal is to help establish larger "in region" areas for teams my thought is why not use a different base criteria for who is "in region" for each school. Simply say the nearest 75 or 100 D3 schools to your school (by road miles) are your "in region" eligible opponents.
Using this method every school falls under the same standard, and arcane boundaries do not exist.
One concern is that a game might be in-region for one school, but not for the other!
Here's what the region looks like through the weekend:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI50 RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.850 0.501 0.508 0.504 0.677 0.590 021 A C 17-3 17-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.833 0.522 0.506 0.516 0.675 0.596 022 A C 10-2 15-6 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.750 0.547 0.492 0.529 0.639 0.584 047 C 014 9-3 13-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.722 0.570 0.510 0.550 0.636 0.593 050 A C 13-5 15-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.737 0.520 0.528 0.523 0.630 0.576 057 C 021 14-5 15-6 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.762 0.480 0.506 0.489 0.625 0.557 061 A C-2 16-5 16-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.722 0.495 0.492 0.494 0.608 0.551 075 C 037 13-5 13-6 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.706 0.506 0.470 0.494 0.600 0.547 086 C 046 12-5 16-5 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.737 0.442 0.500 0.461 0.599 0.530 089 C 049 14-5 14-6 PrAC Bethany
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
RPI50: 50% WP and 50% SOS
RPI: 25% WP and 75% SOS
Updated: 2/7/2010
Wooster's schedule strength comes up a bit, though I wouldn't say they're a lock to hold on to the top spot when the rankings come out on Wednesday. I still think Hope compares very favorably.
Wilmington falls to John Carrol, and Calvin drops one to Olivet. Penn State Behrend loses both games, they likely won't be ranked this week.
Wooster, Hope, Calvin, John Carroll, Wilmington, and Thomas More should be our six ranked teams. Not sure though where Calvin will rank with respect to JCU and Wilmington, but I do like the order that is listed above.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2010, 10:38:50 PM
Here's what the region looks like through the weekend:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI50 RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.850 0.501 0.508 0.504 0.677 0.590 021 A C 17-3 17-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.833 0.522 0.506 0.516 0.675 0.596 022 A C 10-2 15-6 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.750 0.547 0.492 0.529 0.639 0.584 047 C 014 9-3 13-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.722 0.570 0.510 0.550 0.636 0.593 050 A C 13-5 15-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.737 0.520 0.528 0.523 0.630 0.576 057 C 021 14-5 15-6 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.762 0.480 0.506 0.489 0.625 0.557 061 A C-2 16-5 16-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.722 0.495 0.492 0.494 0.608 0.551 075 C 037 13-5 13-6 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.706 0.506 0.470 0.494 0.600 0.547 086 C 046 12-5 16-5 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.737 0.442 0.500 0.461 0.599 0.530 089 C 049 14-5 14-6 PrAC Bethany
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
RPI50: 50% WP and 50% SOS
RPI: 25% WP and 75% SOS
Updated: 2/7/2010
Wooster's schedule strength comes up a bit, though I wouldn't say they're a lock to hold on to the top spot when the rankings come out on Wednesday. I still think Hope compares very favorably.
Wilmington falls to John Carrol, and Calvin drops one to Olivet. Penn State Behrend loses both games, they likely won't be ranked this week.
Wooster, Hope, Calvin, John Carroll, Wilmington, and Thomas More should be our six ranked teams. Not sure though where Calvin will rank with respect to JCU and Wilmington, but I do like the order that is listed above.
Thanks for your work KnightSlappy.
I definitely think we'll see Wooster at 1 and Hope at 2. After that it'll get a little more interesting. I think Hope and Calvin fans should already start rooting hard for Wooster to win the automatic bid in the NCAC if they want a Pool C to go to the MIAA.
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on February 08, 2010, 10:21:36 AM
Thanks for your work KnightSlappy.
I definitely think we'll see Wooster at 1 and Hope at 2. After that it'll get a little more interesting. I think Hope and Calvin fans should already start rooting hard for Wooster to win the automatic bid in the NCAC if they want a Pool C to go to the MIAA.
Wooster will be in even if they falter in the NCAC tournament, but your point is very well understood. The MIAA doesn't have a strong case for an at large bid, so they (Calvin and/or Hope) will need to get "on the table" as soon as possible. They would be well served to also remain ahead of the OAC schools as well. You don't want to get stuck behind anyone with any sort of question mark or you may miss your opportunity to get selected.
In a perfect world (for the MIAA) Calvin or Hope would be first on the table for the Great Lakes region. If that's the case, I think they get their second team into the tournament.
I agree about Wooster being pretty safe for a Pool C at this point. I also don't see what would cause Hope to jump Wooster in this week's GL rankings? Hope's wins were against winless Alma and Olivet who is now under .500 in-region record wise, while both of Wooster's wins came against teams with over .500 in-region records. In fact, Wabash had an in region win percentage of over .700 before their loss to Wooster yesterday dropped them back to .680. Hardly reason for the ranking committee to make a change at the top if you ask me.
The question I have would be, is the OAC going to have a case for a Pool C candidate?
If both JCU and Wilma win out in their 4 remaining regular season games, they should both be in a pretty strong position to vie for a Pool C bid coming out of the GL I would think. Granted, that is a big if, but both are capable of winning out and by doing so, I think would come really close to passing Calvin and maybe even Hope because of the tougher opponents in the OAC they face coming down the stretch.
Quote from: northb on February 06, 2010, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: realist on February 06, 2010, 11:09:34 AM
Sorry about the dustup. I forgot about the administrative region aspect, and knew the status of Defiance. :)
I have always thought that the state borders concept was highly arbitarary. If the goal is to help establish larger "in region" areas for teams my thought is why not use a different base criteria for who is "in region" for each school. Simply say the nearest 75 or 100 D3 schools to your school (by road miles) are your "in region" eligible opponents.
Using this method every school falls under the same standard, and arcane boundaries do not exist.
One concern is that a game might be in-region for one school, but not for the other!
When I came up with this great idea it was an attempt to assist schools in sparsely (D3) populated areas come up with viable "in region"opponents. At the same time I did not want to punish a school in a highly (D3) populated area. My thought was, for example, if Wheaton were one of the closest 75 or 100 for Calviin.but the opposite were not true it would count as "in region" for both. With todays computer mapping capability it is not that burdensome a task to determine which schools would be "in region" eleigible for any school. Wheaton looks at Calvin's map to determine if they are "in region" or not. Perhaps an easier way to say this is anyone who is "in region" for one of two schools it is automatically "in region" for the other. Granted I did a poor job communicating how my plan might work. :)
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 08, 2010, 11:30:13 AM
I agree about Wooster being pretty safe for a Pool C at this point. I also don't see what would cause Hope to jump Wooster in this week's GL rankings? Hope's wins were against winless Alma and Olivet who is now under .500 in-region record wise, while both of Wooster's wins came against teams with over .500 in-region records. In fact, Wabash had an in region win percentage of over .700 before their loss to Wooster yesterday dropped them back to .680. Hardly reason for the ranking committee to make a change at the top if you ask me.
The question I have would be, is the OAC going to have a case for a Pool C candidate?
If both JCU and Wilma win out in their 4 remaining regular season games, they should both be in a pretty strong position to vie for a Pool C bid coming out of the GL I would think. Granted, that is a big if, but both are capable of winning out and by doing so, I think would come really close to passing Calvin and maybe even Hope because of the tougher opponents in the OAC they face coming down the stretch.
Not that Hope will pass them this week or anything, but since Hope has played fewer regional games, each win boosts their WP faster than Wooster's gets boosted. Last week Wooster had a 0.33 advantage in WP, this week it's only 0.17. Plus Hope's schedule still looks tougher (though that has closed in Wooster's favor this week), and I still feel Hope has the advantage with a win over common opponent Albion and they're 2-1 vs. likely still ranked Calvin.
Like I said, it may not happen this week or even at all, but I can see a scenario in which Wooster and Hope both keep winning, but Hope passing Wooster in the rankings. It may not matter in the end though; what are the chances that both these schools are looking for Pool C? Something in the 10% range?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2010, 11:56:28 AM
It may not matter in the end though; what are the chances that both these schools are looking for Pool C? Something in the 10% range?
You're probably right. I'm just speaking from the perspective of gaining the top seed coming out of the GL more than anything WRT Wooster. If the Scots win out, I feel pretty strong that they should maintain their #1 ranking in the GL Region. If they happen to get tripped up along the way, their possiblities of a top seed will take a serious hit.
If only the Scots could have beaten the Brits back on opening day they would have a pretty comfortable lead in-region right now. But because of that loss, they now have zero room for error... ::) ???
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 08, 2010, 12:38:15 PM
If the Scots win out, I feel pretty strong that they should maintain their #1 ranking in the GL Region.
If the Dutchmen also win out, they'll end up with a better WP than Wooster. I don't think anyone in Holland is counting on them to win out, but it is possible.
The new regional rankings are out.
Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Wooster 17-3 17-4
2. Hope 10-2 15-6
3. John Carroll 13-5 15-5
4. Thomas More 16-5 16-5
5. Wilmington (Ohio) 14-5 15-6
6. Calvin 9-3 13-8
After a quick glance at all the regions I noticed that Hope and Calvin at 12 in-region games have 2 in-region games fewer than every other ranked team across the country. And even then there is a single team, Randolph-Macon, with just 14 games. Maryville (TN) has 15.
Most teams are up at the 16-20 range.
I'm very confused as to how Wilmington is ranked higher than Calvin.
According to my data:
- Calvin has a better WP
- Calvin has a tougher SOS
- They are both 1-0 vs. Ohio Northern (the only common opponent)
- They are both 1-2 vs. in-region regionally ranked teams. Calvin is 1-2 vs. #2 Hope and Wilmington is 1-1 vs. #3 JCU and 0-1 vs. #4 Thomas More.
- They have not played head to head
I know it's probably close, but doesn't Calvin look better based on the criteria? (number of wins and loses is NOT a listed criteria)
Maybe the committee still has Olivet's record wrong which hurts Calvin's SOS?
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on February 10, 2010, 04:07:02 PM
The new regional rankings are out.
Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Wooster 17-3 17-4
2. Hope 10-2 15-6
3. John Carroll 13-5 15-5
4. Thomas More 16-5 16-5
5. Wilmington (Ohio) 14-5 15-6
6. Calvin 9-3 13-8
So far this week:
-Wooster, Hope, John Carroll and Calvin got the wins they need for positioning.
-Thomas More also won but will take another hit on their already suspect OWP and SOS with their victory over Waynesburg. The Saints will have trouble holding off other teams that keep on winning; their upside potential is limited as far as the regional rankings go.
-Wilmington lost to Ohio Northern. That makes five losses in their last eight games, their stock is clearly falling.
Here's what the region looks like through Thursday's games.
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI50 RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.857 0.514 0.501 0.510 0.684 0.597 019 A C 18-3 18-4 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.846 0.510 0.508 0.509 0.678 0.594 023 A C 11-2 16-6 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.769 0.567 0.484 0.539 0.654 0.597 037 C 011 10-3 14-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.737 0.555 0.513 0.541 0.639 0.590 048 A C 14-5 16-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.773 0.459 0.508 0.475 0.624 0.549 063 A C-2 17-5 17-5 PrAC Thomas More
GL 06 0.737 0.504 0.490 0.499 0.618 0.558 068 C 030 14-5 14-6 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 07 0.700 0.527 0.526 0.527 0.613 0.570 073 C 035 14-6 15-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 08 0.722 0.495 0.472 0.488 0.605 0.546 079 C 041 13-5 17-5 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.700 0.464 0.496 0.474 0.587 0.531 097 C 056 14-6 14-7 NCAC Wabash
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
RPI50: 50% WP and 50% SOS
RPI: 25% WP and 75% SOS
Updated: 2/12/2010
Kudos to Wooster on bringing that SOS number up big time in the recent weeks.
Another win for Calvin should allow them to jump ahead of Thomas More in next week's ranking. Their WPs would be very similar, but Calvin's SOS is numerically in the top 85% of schedules around the country. Thomas More's SOS is closer to the 25th percentile... ouch.
Here's the GL Region data through Sunday's games (2-14-2010):
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI50 RPI NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.857 0.527 0.497 0.517 0.687 0.602 018 A C 12-2 17-6 MIAA Hope
GL 02 0.818 0.530 0.496 0.519 0.668 0.594 025 A C 18-4 18-5 NCAC Wooster
GL 03 0.786 0.540 0.485 0.522 0.654 0.588 037 C 011 11-3 15-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.737 0.547 0.510 0.535 0.636 0.585 047 A C 14-5 17-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.737 0.509 0.467 0.495 0.616 0.556 066 C 029 14-5 18-5 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 06 0.700 0.523 0.520 0.522 0.611 0.567 074 C 037 14-6 16-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 07 0.739 0.470 0.503 0.481 0.610 0.546 076 A 17-6 17-6 PrAC Thomas More
GL 08 0.700 0.511 0.493 0.505 0.603 0.554 082 C 043 14-6 14-7 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 09 0.714 0.466 0.491 0.474 0.594 0.534 088 C 048 15-6 15-7 PrAC Bethany
Pool: A Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference
B Pool B eligible team
C At large candidate
N/A Not eligible for postseason participation
B or C # Rank in Pool (C or B)
A Status: C Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C
C-2 2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C
In Clinched Pool A bid
Blank Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C
RPI50: 50% WP and 50% SOS
RPI: 25% WP and 75% SOS
Updated: 2/14/2010
My guess for Wednesday's rankings (in tiers) is:
1. Hope
-----------------------
2. Wooster
-----------------------
3. John Carroll
4. Calvin
-----------------------
5. Wittenberg
6. Thomas More
Regional Rankings for 2/17:
1. Hope
2. John Carroll
3. Wooster
4. Calvin
5. Wittenberg
6. Thomas More
I already found an error as the NCAA stats sheet lists Wooster as 0-2 against in-region ranked teams rather than giving them credit for the victory over Wittenberg in their first meeting.
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Regional Rankings for 2/17:
1. Hope
2. John Carroll
3. Wooster
4. Calvin
5. Wittenberg
6. Thomas More
I already found an error as the NCAA stats sheet lists Wooster as 0-2 against in-region ranked teams rather than giving them credit for the victory over Wittenberg in their first meeting.
You can always count on the NCAA to make mistakes. :-\
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
I already found an error as the NCAA stats sheet lists Wooster as 0-2 against in-region ranked teams rather than giving them credit for the victory over Wittenberg in their first meeting.
I wonder if this mistake had any bearing on knocking down Wooster below JCU? :-\
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2010, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
I already found an error as the NCAA stats sheet lists Wooster as 0-2 against in-region ranked teams rather than giving them credit for the victory over Wittenberg in their first meeting.
I wonder if this mistake had any bearing on knocking down Wooster below JCU? :-\
Perhaps...or the head-to-head helped JCU be above Wooster.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 17, 2010, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2010, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
I already found an error as the NCAA stats sheet lists Wooster as 0-2 against in-region ranked teams rather than giving them credit for the victory over Wittenberg in their first meeting.
I wonder if this mistake had any bearing on knocking down Wooster below JCU? :-\
Perhaps...or the head-to-head helped JCU be above Wooster.
True. I for one thought the difference in OWP favored Wooster enough to offset other areas.
Witt has a real shot to rise in the rankings the next two weeks as well.
Personally, Wooster despite their loss to JCU should be ranked ahead of John Carroll. Wooster hasn't lost but once since December and John Carroll has suffered one too many losses to merit being ranked second in-region
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Regional Rankings for 2/17:
1. Hope
2. John Carroll
3. Wooster
4. Calvin
5. Wittenberg
6. Thomas More
The beauty of the timing in which the NCAA chooses to release regional rankings is that they are quickly obsolete. Approximately 5 hours after they are released Hope and Wittenberg lose while John Carroll, Wooster, Calvin and Thomas More pick up wins.
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 10:09:53 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Regional Rankings for 2/17:
1. Hope
2. John Carroll
3. Wooster
4. Calvin
5. Wittenberg
6. Thomas More
The beauty of the timing in which the NCAA chooses to release regional rankings is that they are quickly obsolete. Approximately 5 hours after they are released Hope and Wittenberg lose while John Carroll, Wooster, Calvin and Thomas More pick up wins.
touche, I knew I should have kept my mouth shot
How close is Wabash to cracking the GL Regional Rankings? With their win over likely previously ranked Wittenberg, Wabash now has a 16-6 regional record. Is that good enough to get it done? I mean, Witt's regional win percentage before their loss to Wabash was .737 which was good enough to garner the #5 slot in last week's rankings. Wabash's win percentage after their win at Witt puts them at .727 which I would think should be good enough to get them ranked.
Of course, my reasons for inquiring about this are selfish because Wooster has swept the Lil Giants this season and it would look good for their record vs. regionally ranked opponents portion of the criteria. ;D
I still don't know if it would be enough for Wooster to overtake JCU if the Blue Streaks win on Saturday. Their RPI should only improve with wins to end the season over Heide and ONU who both have better regional records than Wooster's opponents this week by far.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 19, 2010, 09:39:18 AM
How close is Wabash to cracking the GL Regional Rankings? With their win over likely previously ranked Wittenberg, Wabash now has a 16-6 regional record. Is that good enough to get it done? I mean, Witt's regional win percentage before their loss to Wabash was .737 which was good enough to garner the #5 slot in last week's rankings. Wabash's win percentage after their win at Witt puts them at .727 which I would think should be good enough to get them ranked.
Of course, my reasons for inquiring about this are selfish because Wooster has swept the Lil Giants this season and it would look good for their record vs. regionally ranked opponents portion of the criteria. ;D
I still don't know if it would be enough for Wooster to overtake JCU if the Blue Streaks win on Saturday. Their RPI should only improve with wins to end the season over Heide and ONU who both have better regional records than Wooster's opponents this week by far.
I have Wabash as the #8 team in the region (thru last night). They're big problem is the very (very) poor SOS number (312
th according to my numbers), and both Thomas More and PS-Behrend have stronger schedules. At this point, I would bet Wilmington gets back in, replacing Witt.
Here's what I'm looking at through Thursday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI RPI50 NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.826 0.523 0.504 0.517 0.594 0.671 024 A C 19-4 19-5 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.800 0.538 0.491 0.523 0.592 0.661 032 A C 12-3 17-7 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.800 0.537 0.488 0.521 0.590 0.660 035 C 009 12-3 16-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.737 0.556 0.511 0.541 0.590 0.639 047 A C 14-5 18-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.700 0.532 0.523 0.529 0.572 0.614 065 C 028 14-6 17-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.739 0.474 0.505 0.484 0.548 0.612 069 A 17-6 18-6 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.727 0.475 0.497 0.483 0.544 0.605 077 C 038 16-6 16-7 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.727 0.465 0.495 0.475 0.538 0.601 079 C 040 16-6 16-7 NCAC Wabash
GL 09 0.700 0.516 0.468 0.500 0.550 0.600 080 C 041 14-6 18-6 NCAC Wittenberg
Check out those standard-RPI numbers for the top 4 teams --that's insanely close! I'm thinking all four are good for an Pool C should they reach their respective tournament championship games otherwise unscathed, and we don't see too many "big" upsets.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 11:14:26 AM
I have Wabash as the #8 team in the region (thru last night). They're big problem is the very (very) poor SOS number (312th according to my numbers), and both Thomas More and PS-Behrend have stronger schedules. At this point, I would bet Wilmington gets back in, replacing Witt.
Thanks KS. That answered my question. Wabash's SOS is comaratively poor, but TMC and PSU-B don't exactly have SOS's to write home about. I guess I was just hoping that maybe the the LG's would slide into Witt's spot given the fact that they beat Witt on the road last week or at the very least, TMC would slide up to #5 and Wabash would slide in at #6.
Although, as you know quite well, trying to predict how the rankings committee will rank the teams is like trying to predict lottery numbers... :P
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 19, 2010, 12:17:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 11:14:26 AM
I have Wabash as the #8 team in the region (thru last night). They're big problem is the very (very) poor SOS number (312th according to my numbers), and both Thomas More and PS-Behrend have stronger schedules. At this point, I would bet Wilmington gets back in, replacing Witt.
Thanks KS. That answered my question. Wabash's SOS is comaratively poor, but TMC and PSU-B don't exactly have SOS's to write home about. I guess I was just hoping that maybe the the LG's would slide into Witt's spot given the fact that they beat Witt on the road last week or at the very least, TMC would slide up to #5 and Wabash would slide in at #6.
Although, as you know quite well, trying to predict how the rankings committee will rank the teams is like trying to predict lottery numbers... :P
I'm quite positive it's more difficutl than predicting lottery numbers!
Wabash could get in at #6, but I think they may end up #7 in the NCAA's mind. I think Wilmington, with that SOS, will get into the #6 spot. The LG's will be ahead of Witt, and most likely PS-B.
...now that I look at it more they have a better chance than I originally thought... but who knows how the weight WP and SOS for any particular team...
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 11:45:37 AM
Here's what I'm looking at through Thursday's games:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI RPI50 NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.826 0.523 0.504 0.517 0.594 0.671 024 A C 19-4 19-5 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.800 0.538 0.491 0.523 0.592 0.661 032 A C 12-3 17-7 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.800 0.537 0.488 0.521 0.590 0.660 035 C 009 12-3 16-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.737 0.556 0.511 0.541 0.590 0.639 047 A C 14-5 18-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.700 0.532 0.523 0.529 0.572 0.614 065 C 028 14-6 17-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.739 0.474 0.505 0.484 0.548 0.612 069 A 17-6 18-6 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.727 0.475 0.497 0.483 0.544 0.605 077 C 038 16-6 16-7 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.727 0.465 0.495 0.475 0.538 0.601 079 C 040 16-6 16-7 NCAC Wabash
GL 09 0.700 0.516 0.468 0.500 0.550 0.600 080 C 041 14-6 18-6 NCAC Wittenberg
Check out those standard-RPI numbers for the top 4 teams --that's insanely close! I'm thinking all four are good for an Pool C should they reach their respective tournament championship games otherwise unscathed, and we don't see too many "big" upsets.
KS--how is this likely to be changed with Calvin's upcoming back-to-back games with Alma (last reg season game and first tourney game), even if they win both? SOS will be severely hurt I would guess.
Calvin's SOS will suffer, but they'll stay in the top 4, which is critical. The MIAA's in good shape to have their non-tournement winner at the top of the Pool C discussion table.
Just remember to root for Wooster and John Carroll to win their tournaments!
I'll try to plug in two games against Alma in a bit and report the results back to you.
Plugging in two Calvin wins over Alma, and two Hope wins over Trine we get:
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI RPI50 NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 02 0.824 0.515 0.489 0.507 0.586 0.665 027 A C 14-3 17-7 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.824 0.481 0.496 0.486 0.570 0.655 039 C 010 14-3 16-8 MIAA Calvin
Calvin's SOS drops significantly, but they're still in decent shape. Should they go on to play Hope in the Tournament final, much of the Alma affect will be nullified.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 01:55:38 PM
Just remember to root for Wooster and John Carroll to win their tournaments!
Since Pool C selections are done on a national, not regional, basis, wouldn't it be just as important to the MIAA tourney loser for other top seeds around the country besides just Wooster and JC to win their conference tourneys?
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 19, 2010, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 01:55:38 PM
Just remember to root for Wooster and John Carroll to win their tournaments!
Since Pool C selections are done on a national, not regional, basis, wouldn't it be just as important to the MIAA tourney loser for other top seeds around the country besides just Wooster and JC to win their conference tourneys?
Yes........but I suppose it would be possible for a team like Wilmington to beat JCU and JCU remain ranked ahead of the MIAA Pool C candidate, thus pushing their spot on the table down until JCU was selected if at all.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2010, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 19, 2010, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2010, 01:55:38 PM
Just remember to root for Wooster and John Carroll to win their tournaments!
Since Pool C selections are done on a national, not regional, basis, wouldn't it be just as important to the MIAA tourney loser for other top seeds around the country besides just Wooster and JC to win their conference tourneys?
Yes........but I suppose it would be possible for a team like Wilmington to beat JCU and JCU remain ranked ahead of the MIAA Pool C candidate, thus pushing their spot on the table down until JCU was selected if at all.
That's what I was thinkings. Since only the top team from each region can be considered at any point in the Pool C discussion, it's to your advantage to get into the discussion ASAP so that you have more opportunities to get selected.
But you're correct. The fewer upsets we see nationally, the better chance there is for the Pool C hopefuls to get in. So no rooting for the underdogs!
Sorry for the delay, here's the data through Sunday's games.
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI RPI50 NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.833 0.511 0.501 0.508 0.589 0.671 022 A C 20-4 20-5 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.813 0.530 0.488 0.516 0.590 0.664 028 A C 13-3 18-7 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.813 0.508 0.492 0.503 0.580 0.658 031 C 007 13-3 17-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.773 0.555 0.509 0.539 0.598 0.656 035 A C 17-5 19-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.739 0.524 0.520 0.523 0.577 0.631 049 C 016 17-6 18-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.760 0.474 0.504 0.484 0.553 0.622 064 A C-2 19-6 19-6 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.739 0.476 0.497 0.483 0.547 0.611 074 C 035 17-6 17-7 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.714 0.506 0.486 0.499 0.553 0.607 076 C 037 15-6 19-6 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.739 0.464 0.494 0.474 0.540 0.606 077 C 038 17-6 17-7 PrAC Bethany
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 09:18:23 PM
Sorry for the delay, here's the data through Sunday's games.
REG # WP OWP OOWP SOS RPI RPI50 NAT Pool REG OVR CONF Team
GL 01 0.833 0.511 0.501 0.508 0.589 0.671 022 A C 20-4 20-5 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.813 0.530 0.488 0.516 0.590 0.664 028 A C 13-3 18-7 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.813 0.508 0.492 0.503 0.580 0.658 031 C 007 13-3 17-8 MIAA Calvin
GL 04 0.773 0.555 0.509 0.539 0.598 0.656 035 A C 17-5 19-5 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.739 0.524 0.520 0.523 0.577 0.631 049 C 016 17-6 18-7 OAC Wilmington
GL 06 0.760 0.474 0.504 0.484 0.553 0.622 064 A C-2 19-6 19-6 PrAC Thomas More
GL 07 0.739 0.476 0.497 0.483 0.547 0.611 074 C 035 17-6 17-7 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.714 0.506 0.486 0.499 0.553 0.607 076 C 037 15-6 19-6 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 09 0.739 0.464 0.494 0.474 0.540 0.606 077 C 038 17-6 17-7 PrAC Bethany
Thanks for all the efort you put into this.
Today's Great Lakes Region ranking
1. John Carroll
2. Wooster
3. Hope
4. Calvin
5. Thomas More
6. Wilmington
.....except for Thomas More, it mirrors RPI
Knightslappy,
Is there a post where you explain the abbrieviations/calculations? I'd love to know more about your method...
Quote from: jcu_fan on February 24, 2010, 10:03:36 PM
Knightslappy,
Is there a post where you explain the abbrieviations/calculations? I'd love to know more about your method...
Basically, I collect data (from the d3hoops.com team schedules) on every team in the country. I then calculate the in-region winning percentage (WP), opponents winning percentage (OWP) and opponents-opponents winning percentage (OOWP).
I take these values and compute in-region RPI (25% WP and 75% SOS) and a value that I call RPI50 (50% WP and 50%SOS)
Strength of Schedule (SOS) is defined by the NCAA as 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP
I currently rank the regions according to RPI50 (that seemed to work well in the early rankings), but now, as sac points out above, the standard RPI seems to be correlating better with the NCAA's official rankings.
I have awarded the team with the top RPI50 in each Pool A conference with bids.
I then rank all the Pool B and C teams according to RPI50.
That's really all there is to it. It's just a hard calculation based on numbers only (no head to head adjustments or anything).
I apologize in advance for asking a question that's probably been answered before on this board, but I'm a newby, and it is not clear to me how at large teams are selected for the DIII tournament. Last year Calvin won the MIAA league championship but didn't get the automatic bid because it lost in the league tournament, and I can envision a similar scenario this year. How does this infamous "Pool C" work?
Quote from: Knight81 on February 25, 2010, 10:22:10 AM
I apologize in advance for asking a question that's probably been answered before on this board, but I'm a newby, and it is not clear to me how at large teams are selected for the DIII tournament. Last year Calvin won the MIAA league championship but didn't get the automatic bid because it lost in the league tournament, and I can envision a similar scenario this year. How does this infamous "Pool C" work?
Pool C is the NCAA's designation for At-Large bids.
The NCAA prepares a final set of regional rankings like the set released yesterday. After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Pool A is made up of conference automatic qualifiers. With the exception of the UAA, all conferences award this to their tournament winner. (40 bids this year).
Pool B is made up of teams that either play independent of a conference, or in a conference that has not yet qualified for an automatic bid. (2 bids this year).
After the Pool A and B bids are distributed all remaining teams are eligible for Pool C selection (at-large). (19 bids this year).
The NCAA uses specific criteria to select Pool B and C teams: http://d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=45
The d3hoops.com Tournament FAQ is very good: http://d3hoops.com/faq.php?category=NCAA%20Tournament
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Is this different from simply selecting the highest ranking of the remaining teams from all regions?
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Is this different from simply selecting the highest ranking of the remaining teams from all regions?
Only 8 teams are considered at once (one per region), so head to head results and the like are not used in comparison to teams not yet on the discussion table.
That being said, all 19 could theoretically come from one region (but this would never actually happen).
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Is this different from simply selecting the highest ranking of the remaining teams from all regions?
I'm not sure I fully understand the question but the process is set up as it is so that the second, third, fourth, ect best non-auto qualifying team from a region can't get passed up by a less deserving team in another region simply because the latter was highly ranked in their particular region. Does that answer your question?
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:07:27 AM
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Is this different from simply selecting the highest ranking of the remaining teams from all regions?
I'm not sure I fully understand the question but the process is set up as it is so that the second, third, fourth, ect best non-auto qualifying team from a region can't get passed up by a less deserving team in another region simply because the latter was highly ranked in their particular region. Does that answer your question?
I think so. Your response implies that there is a difference between the way the regional raking is done, to get on the board, and the way the national ranking is done between teams of different regions.
I had been under the impression that teams were selected based on regional rankings from the different regions, which seems less than ideal since regions differ. But if there is some correction factor based on the strength of the region or something, that would help.
Edit: KnightSlappy says above that head-to-head comparisons are done. That might be hard for teams in different regions, but it's something, I suppose.
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:54:05 AM
But if there is some correction factor based on the strength of the region or something, that would help.
Something of that kind might occur, but it would be subjective and in the minds of the individual committee member. (Some might term it "bias," in fact.)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:54:05 AM
But if there is some correction factor based on the strength of the region or something, that would help.
Something of that kind might occur, but it would be subjective and in the minds of the individual committee member. (Some might term it "bias," in fact.)
Our problem is there is no way to predict how the committee will value each number. How good does a winning percentage need to be to overcome a weak strength of schedule? How strong of a schedule is needed to make a lesser winning percentage look competitive for a Pool C?
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:07:27 AM
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
After removing all the automatic qualifiers the committe will put the highest remaining team from each region "on the board". Since there are 8 regions, 8 teams are considered per round and one will be awarded a pool c based on the criterion in the handbook (winning percentage, strength of schedule, wins versus regionally ranked opponents, etc.). When that team leaves the board they are replaced by the next highest ranked team in that region. The process continues until all 19 pool c bids have been awarded.
Is this different from simply selecting the highest ranking of the remaining teams from all regions?
I'm not sure I fully understand the question but the process is set up as it is so that the second, third, fourth, ect best non-auto qualifying team from a region can't get passed up by a less deserving team in another region simply because the latter was highly ranked in their particular region. Does that answer your question?
I think so. Your response implies that there is a difference between the way the regional raking is done, to get on the board, and the way the national ranking is done between teams of different regions.
I had been under the impression that teams were selected based on regional rankings from the different regions, which seems less than ideal since regions differ. But if there is some correction factor based on the strength of the region or something, that would help.
The #2 Mid-Atlantic team is not always selected before the #6 Midwest team, just because they were a #2 vs. a #6.
On Hoopsville, they had a committee member on, and he said they do consider the validity of strength of schedule numbers. For example, a team that plays 20 conference games will have a SOS that trends toward 0.500. A team that plays only 10 or 12 conference games has more room for strength of schedule variance due to the increased number of non-conference games. So in that respect, they try to "look inside the numbers".
JCU gets upended in the OAC semifinals, putting themselves (I guess) on the Pool C bubble and opening the door for Wooster or the MIAA champ to be the region's top seed.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 26, 2010, 08:54:49 PM
JCU gets upended in the OAC semifinals, putting themselves (I guess) on the Pool C bubble and opening the door for Wooster or the MIAA champ to be the region's top seed.
It's also gonna be a battle between John Carroll and the MIAA loser for position on the selection board. My initial guess (my numbers are still updating) is Hope would top JCU, but Calvin wouldn't.
KnightSlappy,
How do you have Wooster and JCU stacking up against each other if Wooster were to lose to Wittenberg tonight?
Quote from: seinfeld on February 27, 2010, 11:33:57 AM
KnightSlappy,
How do you have Wooster and JCU stacking up against each other if Wooster were to lose to Wittenberg tonight?
It would be close, but I suspect the head to head matchup from earlier in the year would be the key.
Wooster would have a better WP, JCU would have a better SOS. It all depends on how the committee weighs the two.
If I had to wager a guess, I'd say John Carroll would have the advantage.
I think Hope and Calvin fans should be rooting for Wooster today. Although how they would all stack up is close the loser of the MIAA game can rest easier if Wooster wins. With JCU already losing you don't want to see the top two seeds in the region losing.
at Carthage
Hope vs Whitewater
Carthage vs Aurora
.......book it. ::)
Could Witt end up the #6 team in the Great Lakes final regional rankings despite losing in the NCAC title game? Both Thomas More and Penn St. Behrend also lost, and to weaker teams. I would think Witt would definitely pass Behrend. Thomas More would be closer.
Quote from: seinfeld on February 28, 2010, 11:48:21 AM
Could Witt end up the #6 team in the Great Lakes final regional rankings despite losing in the NCAC title game? Both Thomas More and Penn St. Behrend also lost, and to weaker teams. I would think Witt would definitely pass Behrend. Thomas More would be closer.
I think it'll be Thomas More, but if not, it'd be Witt next.
I think Hope will end up #1 in the Regional rankings, but because of geography, they'll travel west and Wooster will stay at home to play a round or two.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 11:57:11 AM
I think Hope will end up #1 in the Regional rankings, but because of geography, they'll travel west and Wooster will stay at home to play a round or two.
I'm not so sure about that. The Midwest/half-West (i.e., WIAC, MIAC, and IIAC) is a pretty overstuffed area that has to accommodate three pods. The WIAC will have two teams (UWSP, UWW), the CCIW could have either two or three (Carthage, Illinois Wesleyan, maybe Wheaton), the MIAC will have two (Carleton, St. Thomas), and the UAA, IIAC, NAthCon, SLIAC, and MWC will have one apiece. (I'm not including the HCAC, whose rep, Defiance, is more geographically aligned with the Great Lakes Region than the Midwest Region to which it belongs.)
That's either eleven or twelve teams, which should fill the three non-Whitworth pods of the westernmost sectional. I'm just not convinced that Hope will have room to be shipped west, unless the committee actually gets creative (don't hold your breath) and ships a team like Wheaton, Aurora, or IWU eastward and sends Hope in the other direction.
But there's really no reason to have to put Whitworth in the Midwest/West pod. They'll have to fly, so put them anywhere you'd please.
I'd rather give as many of the top deserving teams a host (Wash U, UWSP, UWW, and Carthage), and send the Whitworth pod out to the GL or ODAC. That would open up spots for Hope to move west... but it's really impossible to know what they'll do.
The bracketing process is more of a crapshoot than the NFL draft.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 11:57:11 AM
I think Hope will end up #1 in the Regional rankings, but because of geography, they'll travel west and Wooster will stay at home to play a round or two.
I'm not so sure about that. The Midwest/half-West (i.e., WIAC, MIAC, and IIAC) is a pretty overstuffed area that has to accommodate three pods. The WIAC will have two teams (UWSP, UWW), the CCIW could have either two or three (Carthage, Illinois Wesleyan, maybe Wheaton), the MIAC will have two (Carleton, St. Thomas), and the UAA, IIAC, NAthCon, SLIAC, and MWC will have one apiece. (I'm not including the HCAC, whose rep, Defiance, is more geographically aligned with the Great Lakes Region than the Midwest Region to which it belongs.)
That's either eleven or twelve teams, which should fill the three non-Whitworth pods of the westernmost sectional. I'm just not convinced that Hope will have room to be shipped west, unless the committee actually gets creative (don't hold your breath) and ships a team like Wheaton, Aurora, or IWU eastward and sends Hope in the other direction.
5 of the last 6 trips to the NCAA's have put Hope in a bracket that included a path through Wisconsin or CCIW/Midwest teams in the first two rounds. In 2007 we had the added pleasure of being in the Stevens Point Sectional with Carroll, Washington and Stevens Point
Hope's 1st and 2nd round 'pods'
2002 St. Norbert, Carthage
2003 UW-Oshkosh, Mil-Engineeering
2006 Wis Lutheran, UW-LaCrosse, Calvin
2007 Aurora, Chicago, Calvin
2008 Capital, Bethany
2009 UW Platteville, Wheaton, Fontbonne
In 2008 we were fortunate to be one of the top seeds and drew a mostly Great Lakes Sectional.......yet in the sectional Hope hosted we had Wheaton, Whitworth and Ohio Wesleyan
Since the pools era began, I expect Hope to be paired with Midwest/West teams in some form or fashion.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 10:24:48 PM
But there's really no reason to have to put Whitworth in the Midwest/West pod. They'll have to fly, so put them anywhere you'd please.
Yes, but every year "where they please" has almost inevitably been the Midwest/West section. I see little or no chance that the Whitworth pod will be put anywhere but the Midwest/West section.
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 11:57:11 AM
I think Hope will end up #1 in the Regional rankings, but because of geography, they'll travel west and Wooster will stay at home to play a round or two.
I'm not so sure about that. The Midwest/half-West (i.e., WIAC, MIAC, and IIAC) is a pretty overstuffed area that has to accommodate three pods. The WIAC will have two teams (UWSP, UWW), the CCIW could have either two or three (Carthage, Illinois Wesleyan, maybe Wheaton), the MIAC will have two (Carleton, St. Thomas), and the UAA, IIAC, NAthCon, SLIAC, and MWC will have one apiece. (I'm not including the HCAC, whose rep, Defiance, is more geographically aligned with the Great Lakes Region than the Midwest Region to which it belongs.)
That's either eleven or twelve teams, which should fill the three non-Whitworth pods of the westernmost sectional. I'm just not convinced that Hope will have room to be shipped west, unless the committee actually gets creative (don't hold your breath) and ships a team like Wheaton, Aurora, or IWU eastward and sends Hope in the other direction.
5 of the last 6 trips to the NCAA's have put Hope in a bracket that included a path through Wisconsin or CCIW/Midwest teams in the first two rounds. In 2007 we had the added pleasure of being in the Stevens Point Sectional with Carroll, Washington and Stevens Point
Hope's 1st and 2nd round 'pods'
2002 St. Norbert, Carthage
2003 UW-Oshkosh, Mil-Engineeering
2006 Wis Lutheran, UW-LaCrosse, Calvin
2007 Aurora, Chicago, Calvin
2008 Capital, Bethany
2009 UW Platteville, Wheaton, Fontbonne
In 2008 we were fortunate to be one of the top seeds and drew a mostly Great Lakes Sectional.......yet in the sectional Hope hosted we had Wheaton, Whitworth and Ohio Wesleyan
Since the pools era began, I expect Hope to be paired with Midwest/West teams in some form or fashion.
Unlike the Whitworth pod, I think that Hope is much less dependent upon precedent. I think that the more pressing matter is: How many teams can you fit into the three pods (Wash U and the two that will inevitably be held in Wisconsin) that include the conferences in Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota? And, again, those three pods look as though they're all booked up already, whereas the Great Lakes Region states (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, western Pennsylvania) don't seem to have a lot of teams in them (no second OAC team, f'rinstance, and no second NCAC team, either), even when you throw Defiance into the mix, making it more likely that Hope will be needed to help flesh out the two or three Great Lakes pods within what will undoubtedly be another Great Lakes/South sectional.
Of course, as I said it's possible that Hope could be the westbound counterweight to an move to send a northern Illinois team east, if the committee gets creative (and it wasn't at all creative last year, as we all saw with the Bracket of Death). But even if that's the case, it's just as likely that Calvin gets moved west, should the Knights get in, rather than Hope.
My point really is, there doesn't seem to be room in the Midwest/West every year, yet thats the direction they've pointed Hope 5 of 6 trips to the tournament.
Until its consistently different under this system, there's no reason to believe it will be any different.
Yeah, and I see your point, but I think that the geographical layout of the teams that are going dancing this year is what's going to color how the bracket is set up.
<insert picture of me banging my head against a wall>
;)
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 11:20:06 PM
<insert picture of me banging my head against a wall>
;)
You mean like this? (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.scout.com%2Fmedia%2Fforums%2Femoticons%2Fbanghead.gif&hash=acff9cf07e46d7a41b65473f3fe0c6ceb29430f7)
;D
I think it's easier to try and guess what the power ball numbers are going to be than it is trying to figure out what exactly the NCAA is going to do when it comes to selecting and bracketing the tournament.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 28, 2010, 11:38:36 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 11:20:06 PM
<insert picture of me banging my head against a wall>
;)
You mean like this? (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.scout.com%2Fmedia%2Fforums%2Femoticons%2Fbanghead.gif&hash=acff9cf07e46d7a41b65473f3fe0c6ceb29430f7)
;D
I think it's easier to try and guess what the power ball numbers are going to be than it is trying to figure out what exactly the NCAA is going to do when it comes to selecting and bracketing the tournament.
Actually, Pat and others have gotten pretty proficient about selection.
Bracketing, not so much!
The NCAA have an amazing number of ways to bracket teams, not to mention the ability to take what we project and intentionally change them. :)
I would say matching the NCAA on bracketing is a near-impossible task. My goal isn't to match the NCAA on bracketing as much as show them and fans what's possible.
I don't lose any sleep over how the bracket matches. Actually, I don't lose any sleep over the number of teams we get right either, but at least we do keep track of that.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 12:20:46 AM
I would say matching the NCAA on bracketing is a near-impossible task. My goal isn't to match the NCAA on bracketing as much as show them and fans what's possible.
I don't lose any sleep over how the bracket matches. Actually, I don't lose any sleep over the number of teams we get right either, but at least we do keep track of that.
Frankly, I wish that the committee actually looked at your bracket suggestions. Last year's Bracket Of Death was an atrocity and a derogation of duty, as far as I'm concerned. I fully understand the need to keep every matchup possible within the 500-mile limit, but they could've easily re-jiggered the bracket a bit and prevented one section from having almost the entire upper half of the Top 25 poll without violating the 500-mile constraint.
For the record, my quip was not meant as a criticism. I generally find your brackets more 'sensible' than the ones that actually arrive - while still being financially responsible, you've shown how to avoid having a Bracket of Death.
Not worried, Ypsi. I know there are people -- heavy users of the boards -- that seem to hate everything we do. But I know you're not one of them. :)
or maybe the operators of this board can't take criticism or don't like it when people point out the obvious. :)
Actually, no, I don't mind criticism at all. I think you mistake me for the 2005 Pat Coleman. But I find it interesting that people have so many bad things to say about us behind our back, yet put on a smiley face to our face. Why bother with such hypocrisy? Life's too short.
I can't understand why St. Thomas didn't get sent to Stevens Point and Hope to Kenosha. Geographically it would have made so much more sense.
Plus, I still haven't availed myself of the chance to see John Dowie's handiwork to the south, and am dying to do so.
That would have put two MIAC teams at one regional when it was possible to avoid it without violating the 500-mile limit. Also, the committee may have felt it was more appropriate in terms of seeding to send St. Thomas to a lower-seeded host team's site.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 04:16:52 PM
That would have put two MIAC teams at one regional when it was possible to avoid it without violating the 500-mile limit. Also, the committee may have felt it was more appropriate in terms of seeding to send St. Thomas to a lower-seeded host team's site.
Cool. Thanks.
I guess they didn't take my schedule into consideration. Shocking. ;)
Quote from: HopeConvert on March 01, 2010, 04:19:40 PM
I guess they didn't take my schedule into consideration. Shocking. ;)
St. Thomas 20-3
.870 .544 .538
.542Hope 16-3
.842 .543 .504
.530Regional winning percentage and SOS are bolded.
Final NCAA Rankings for the Great Lakes Region released today:
Team, In-Region Record, Overall Record
1. Wooster 23-4 23-5
2. Hope 16-3 21-7
3. Wilmington (Ohio) 20-6 21-7
4. John Carroll 18-6 20-6
5. Calvin 15-4 19-9
6. Wittenberg 17-7 21-7
Here's my Great Lakes regional RPI rankings (including this year's new home/neutral/road strength of schedule weighting as laid out in the NCAA handbook).
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/peek-at-great-lakes-regional-rankings.html
It's easier for me to format the tables on the blog than it is using the forum table code here.
Spoiler: Olivet is #1.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 03, 2011, 05:58:45 PM
Here's my Great Lakes regional RPI rankings (including this year's new home/neutral/road strength of schedule weighting as laid out in the NCAA handbook).
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/peek-at-great-lakes-regional-rankings.html
It's easier for me to format the tables on the blog than it is using the forum table code here.
Spoiler: Olivet is #1.
You have corrected that pixel yellow-ization glitch in the software that we saw earlier around Calvin's name.
Its going to be tough competition to host NCAA games from the Great Lakes Region, this looks like the strongest this region has been in at least the last couple years.
Quote from: sac on January 04, 2011, 11:55:41 PM
Its going to be tough competition to host NCAA games from the Great Lakes Region, this looks like the strongest this region has been in at least the last couple years.
Agreed. If you average the RPI (all D3 vs. D3 games) of the teams in each region, the GL comes out second behind only the West.
Not a perfect way to do it, but A way.
Quote from: sac on January 04, 2011, 11:55:41 PM
Its going to be tough competition to host NCAA games from the Great Lakes Region, this looks like the strongest this region has been in at least the last couple years.
I was already thinking about some upcoming games (ie. Wooster-Wabash, Marietta-John Carroll) as games that could be extremely important for gaining that #1 GL regional ranking and thus potential hosting rights.
With a stronger region, we may also see more teams overall in the tournament from the GL, or we may be able to see two different hosts in the GL who can geographically host teams from other regions.
For example, a "northern" GL team, such as Hope/Calvin/Wooster/JCU could host a fairly "traditional" GL pod (with Hope/Calvin far enough west to draw a West Region team or two, and Wooster/JCU far enough east to draw from NY/Pennsylvania).
But Marietta or Wabash could host a very non-traditional GL pod because of their geography. 500 miles from Marietta would allow it to host almost anyone from Virginia/North Carolina/Maryland/Tennessee/Kentucky, and even a few from South Carolina. 500 miles from Wabash allows it to host most anyone from Wisconsin/Iowa/Missouri/Tennessee/Kentucky.
It's not that hard to see possibilities out there where one GL team would host an all-GL pod while another would host a pod with almost entirely out-of-region teams, if the GL teams are seen as strong enough at selection time.
No doubt Marietta's biggest tests come next week when they host both Capital and John Carroll on back to back game nights.
Marietta could have a stranglehold on the OAC if they win both of those.
Quote from: sac on January 05, 2011, 11:16:24 AM
No doubt Marietta's biggest tests come next week when they host both Capital and John Carroll on back to back game nights.
Marietta could have a stranglehold on the OAC if they win both of those.
I think we will find out if Marietta is for real after next week...
I know many have their own games tonight, but if not, you can watch streaming video of Calvin-Hope online: http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/calvin.portal#
I know last year--I think it was sac--kept track of some of the upcoming key GL regional contests, which was very helpful for tracking developments and stimulating discussion across the region.
Based on how conference standings look at this point, here's the upcoming NCAC and OAC games to watch:
1/8: #1 Wooster at #7 Wabash
1/12: Capital at Marietta
1/15: JCU at Marietta
1/19: Wabash at Wittenberg
1/22: Capital at JCU
1/22: Wittenberg at Wooster
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 05, 2011, 12:32:38 PM
I know many have their own games tonight, but if not, you can watch streaming video of Calvin-Hope online: http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/calvin.portal#
I've been meaning to get that started again, I just haven't had the time to do it. Maybe this weekend.
Inserting some MIAA games:
1/8: #1 Wooster at #7 Wabash
1/12: Capital at Marietta
1/12: Olivet at Calvin
1/15: JCU at Marietta
1/15: Hope at Olivet
1/19: # 7 Wabash at Wittenberg
1/22: Capital at JCU
1/22: Wittenberg at # 1 Wooster
1/22: Hope at Albion
1/26: Albion at Calvin
1/29: Hope at Calvin
Rectifying the omission of Marietta's current ranking...
1/8
#1 Wooster at #7 Wabash
1/12
Capital at #24Marietta
Olivet at Calvin
1/15
JCU at #24 Marietta
Hope at Olivet
1/19
# 7 Wabash at Wittenberg
1/22
Capital at JCU
Wittenberg at # 1 Wooster
Hope at Albion
1/26
Albion at Calvin
1/29
Hope at Calvin
EDIT: Removed the HCAC games, per sac's reminder, below.
The HCAC is in the Midwest Region, but good effort.
Quote from: sac on January 08, 2011, 12:07:20 AM
The HCAC is in the Midwest Region, but good effort.
:-[
This is definitely not the first time that I've screwed up classifying the HCAC.
We do have the Prexy AC, as well as half of the AMCC, but I don't have the time (or inclination) this morning to add their games.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 08, 2011, 12:46:28 AM
Quote from: sac on January 08, 2011, 12:07:20 AM
The HCAC is in the Midwest Region, but good effort.
:-[
This is definitely not the first time that I've screwed up classifying the HCAC.
Well they are part of the women's half of the Great Lakes, which ya know, makes perfect sense. ::)
Maybe Marietta was looking ahead to their next two games and forgot they had a game with the Berg as they took their first loss of the season yesterday at Heidelberg, 81-77. Cap also lost to B-W, 86-79. Had Cap won, they would have been in a tie for 1st in the OAC.
Here's how the GL region is stacking up according to in-region RPI (with SOS weights!)
Reg. Rnk Team Conf. WP wSOS wRPI Nat. Status REG D3 vRRO OVR
GL 1 Wooster NCAC 1.000 0.563 0.672 4 A C 11-0 12-0 0-0 14-0
GL 2 Thiel PrAC 0.875 0.538 0.622 17 A C 7-1 7-1 0-0 9-4
GL 3 Hope MIAA 0.800 0.556 0.617 22 A wC 4-1 4-2 0-0 8-5
GL 4 Calvin MIAA 0.750 0.555 0.604 39 C 15 3-1 3-4 0-0 6-8
GL 5 Wabash NCAC 0.923 0.493 0.600 46 C 21 12-1 12-1 0-0 13-1
GL 6 Heidelberg OAC 0.600 0.595 0.596 48 A bub 6-4 6-5 0-0 6-7
GL 7 Albion MIAA 0.667 0.564 0.589 53 C 25 4-2 7-4 0-0 8-5
GL 8 John Carroll OAC 0.636 0.573 0.589 54 C 26 7-4 8-4 0-0 9-4
GL 9 Olivet MIAA 0.600 0.576 0.582 65 C 33 3-2 4-3 0-0 6-7
Knight Slappy---how is Marietta not in this ranking?
Quote from: MIAA in Exile on January 10, 2011, 12:59:28 PM
Knight Slappy---how is Marietta not in this ranking?
Their issues is a bad (Sir Charles would call it turrible) SOS.
I have them as #10. WP: .909, wSOS: .458, wRPI: .584
yes but they are an A---since they led the OAC--you have H'berg as the OAC A.
It's no biggie since it's so early in the conference season and I'm not being critical...just curious.
Thanks for compiling this.
9 of the top 65 RPI's from this region. Strong!
Quote from: MIAA in Exile on January 10, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
yes but they are an A---since they led the OAC--you have H'berg as the OAC A.
It's no biggie since it's so early in the conference season and I'm not being critical...just curious.
Thanks for compiling this.
This same "issue" came up last season. Heidi gets the "A" since they have the higher RPI and are thereby the stronger team by calculation. It should be assumed that the strongest team wins the conference tournament and the automatic qualifier that comes with it.
The same kind of thing comes up in the MIAA where Albion is on top of the standings yet Hope "gets" the AQ based on RPI.
Quote from: ziggy on January 10, 2011, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: MIAA in Exile on January 10, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
yes but they are an A---since they led the OAC--you have H'berg as the OAC A.
It's no biggie since it's so early in the conference season and I'm not being critical...just curious.
Thanks for compiling this.
This same "issue" came up last season. Heidi gets the "A" since they have the higher RPI and are thereby the stronger team by calculation. It should be assumed that the strongest team wins the conference tournament and the automatic qualifier that comes with it.
The same kind of thing comes up in the MIAA where Albion is on top of the standings yet Hope "gets" the AQ based on RPI.
Exactly. Way to early for me to go through (by hand) and figure out all of the conference leaders. Since the AQ goes to a tourney champ anyway (excepting the UAA), it doesn't much matter how I figure it.
I think if the MIAA were to get 4 teams in the tournament like this chart suggests right now, our buddies across the lake might have a conniption.
There is also zero chance of that actually happening, but I'd love that reaction.
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2011, 01:30:39 PM
I think if the MIAA were to get 4 teams in the tournament like this chart suggests right now, our buddies across the lake might have a conniption.
There is also zero chance of that actually happening, but I'd love that reaction.
It's saying Albion and Olivet are below the cutoff. 18 Pool C teams make it, and they're 25 and 33, but they do have a shot at it.
Four's probably impossible, but they could do three, I think.
It's also a good time for me to point out that these only consider two of the criteria: WP and SOS. Head to head, vs. regionally ranked, and common opponents are not included, so adjust accordingly (e.g. you would be justified to consider Calvin as "ranked" ahead of Hope via the head-to-head matchup).
Quote from: sac on January 10, 2011, 01:30:39 PM
I think if the MIAA were to get 4 teams in the tournament like this chart suggests right now, our buddies across the lake might have a conniption.
There is also zero chance of that actually happening, but I'd love that reaction.
edit: KS covered it so I'll just say that we have all the little "we're lucky to get one team in via pool A" conferences to thank for that.
This year's tracking of the in-region records.
First column overall record/second column in-region record1. Wooster 16-0 13-0
2. Wabash 14-1 13-1
2. Penn St.-Behrend 13-1 13-1
4. Thiel 11-4 10-1
--------------------------------------.900
5. Hope 10-5 6-1
6. Marietta 14-2 11-2
7. Wittenberg 11-4 9-2
--------------------------------------.800
--------------------------------------.700
8. Bethany 10-5 10-5
8. Capital 10-4 8-4
8. Calvin 7-9 4-2
8. Adrian 8-6 4-2
12. Albion 8-6 5-3
---------------------------------------.600
13. John Carroll 10-5 7-5
Next week's key games
1-19 Adrian at Hope
1-19 Wabash at Wittenberg
1-22 Wittenberg at Wooster
1-22 Capital at John Carroll
1-22 Hope at Albion
* I did this quickly so I might have left someone out who shouldn't be, I tried to keep it to teams over .600 in in-region record. Let me know if I left anyone out.
|
Sac - nice work on this list and thanks for posting it.
I think the one other team that should be included is Penn State Behrend because they are in GL region.
Quote from: wooscotsfan on January 16, 2011, 10:08:02 PM
Sac - nice work on this list and thanks for posting it.
I think the one other team that should be included is Penn State Behrend because they are in GL region.
Without a doubt, thanks
Offensive and defensive efficiency rating for the teams above through Sunday's games.
Top 5 OFFENSE
1. Wooster 118.5
2. John Carroll 114.9
2. Hope 114.9
4. Marietta 112.9
5. PSU-Behrend 112.6
Top 5 DEFENSE
1. Wabash 83.0*
2. Adrian 91.0
3. Wittenberg 92.0
4. Wooster 92.2
5. Thiel 92.6
* I looked hard in the Wabash stats to find an error somewhere, but came up with nothing. For D3 I think this is an insanely low number, a good chance it would be the lowest in D3.
OVERALL (200-defense + offense)
1. Wooster 226.3
2. Wabash 223.0
3. PSU-Behrend 220.6
4. Marietta 215.4
5. Hope 212.3
6. Bethany 210.6
7. John Carroll 210.4
8. Capital 209.7
9. Albion 209.1
10. Thiel 207.8
11. Wittenberg 207.6
12. Calvin 204.7
13. Adrian 203
If any of you remember Barry Robinson's old Columbus Multimedia Poll, his efficiency calculations were very similar to these.
A good thing to keep in mind is these are efficiency values vs the schedule each team has played, and as we know, each team has not played the same strength of schedule.
Sac,
Thanks for posting those efficiency numbers. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come up with those numbers? Is there some sort of formula?
Points divided by possessions x 100
possessions = FGA-OR+TO+(FTA x 0.475)
For defense you just use your opponents stats.
Thanks.
I wasn't aware of anybody out there tracking possession data for D-III...or are you crunching those numbers yourself, sac? If so, bravo. Points per 100 possessions are far more meaningful than absolute scoring offense and defense numbers....even without a SOS adjustment. Great info here.
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2011, 10:48:07 AM
Points divided by possessions x 100
possessions = FGA-OR+TO+(FTA x .0475)
For defense you just use your opponents stats.
Correction, sac.
possessions = FGA-OR+TO+(FTA x
0.475)
Quote from: calvin_grad on January 18, 2011, 01:43:28 PM
Correction, sac.
possessions = FGA-OR+TO+(FTA x 0.475)
That's correct thanks, just misplaced the decimal.
Quote from: wally_wabash on January 18, 2011, 10:58:20 AM
I wasn't aware of anybody out there tracking possession data for D-III...or are you crunching those numbers yourself, sac? If so, bravo. Points per 100 possessions are far more meaningful than absolute scoring offense and defense numbers....even without a SOS adjustment. Great info here.
No one tracks this data that I know. I've used the formula on the MIAA for many years, yesterday I did the MIAA and the GL region teams.....so yeah I did it myself.
Here are the scores involving "ranked" GL teams that lost
Wittenberg 55 Wabash 54
Hope 70 Adrian 63
Medaille 60 PSU-Behrend 53.~~
Behrend had won this matchup 66-62 in December.
Everyone else won their midweek game
Quote from: sac on January 21, 2011, 05:26:17 PM
Here are the scores involving "ranked" GL teams that lost
Wittenberg 55 Wabash 54
Hope 70 Adrian 63
Medaille 60 PSU-Behrend 53.~~
Behrend had won this matchup 66-62 in December.
Everyone else won their midweek game
To give a bit of a peek behind the curtain, Adrian actually saw their RPI rise with the loss because it added Hope's WP*1.4 to their SOS. The addition of the multiplier is having a tremendous impact on SOS variability.
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 18-0 15-0
--------------------------------------1.000
--------------------------------------.900
2. Hope 12-5 8-1
3. Wabash 15-2 14-2
3. Penn St.-Behrend 14-2 14-2
5. Marietta 16-2 13-2
6. Thiel 12-5 10-2
--------------------------------------.800
7. Wittenberg 12-5 10-3
8. Calvin 9-9 6-2
9. Bethany 12-5 12-5
--------------------------------------.700
10. Capital 11-5 9-5
10. John Carroll 12-5 9-5
12. Adrian 9-7 5-3
13. Albion 9-7 6-4
--------------------------------------.600
Last week's key games, winners in bold
1-19 Adrian at Hope
1-19 Wabash at Wittenberg
1-22 Wittenberg at Wooster
1-22 Capital at John Carroll
1-22 Hope at Albion
Next week's key games
1-26 Albion at Calvin
1-29 Hope at Calvin
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I'm interested to see what will happen with Adrian and John Carroll.
They both should be under 0.700 for the next rankings, but they'll have really strong (near .600) SOS.
Or a team like Marietta. Could be near 0.850 in the WP, but only about 0.430 in the SOS. And it's even more extreme with PSU-Behrend.
Candidates to be ranked: (removed Capital and Albion).
Records are OVR - REG
Wooster – 19-0 – 16-0
--------------------------------- 1.000
Hope – 13-5 – 9-1
--------------------------------- 0.900
Penn State-Behrend – 15-2 – 15-2
Marietta – 16-2 – 13-2
Wabash – 15-3 – 14-3
--------------------------------- 0.800
Wittenberg – 13-5 – 11-3
Calvin – 10-8 – 7-2
Thiel – 12-5 – 9-3
Bethany – 13-5 – 13-5
--------------------------------- 0.700
John Carroll – 13-5 – 11-5
Adrian – 10-7 – 5-3
So there's my list of 11, but only 6 will be ranked come next week.
Bethany probably has the worst chance. Lower WP, and average-ish sos of .510 and 0-3 versus the other teams on the list (Wooster, Thiel, and John Carroll).
Wooster and Hope will be ranked.
I think Thiel and Wabash will be ranked.
PSU-Behrend has a difficult game with La Roche on Saturday. I'll say win and ranked (committee seems to love large win percentages, and loss and unranked.
Calvin might follow the same win = ranked, loss = unranked formula.
Wittenberg probably needs a Calvin loss to get ranked.
Marietta doesn't look all that good unless Maryville and John Carroll can end up ranked.
Still no idea what to make of John Carroll and Adrian probably both long shots for the first rankings at this point, although the SOS numbers do look good. Adrian benefits if Calvin is ranked, but if Calvin is ranked, then there's fewer spots for them to fit in.
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I'm kind of thinking that Wabash's loss last night just made their home date with Witt a must win if they want to have any chance of getting a C.
Also, where is Cap in the discussion? They have the same record, both overall and in-region as JCU. Is JCU's SOS that much stronger than Cap's?
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I agree that they'll probably have to win against one of the other W's, but I usually don't take the conference tournament loss into account becuase everyone, except UAA, that's a Pool C also has to lose that one.
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 27, 2011, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I'm kind of thinking that Wabash's loss last night just made their home date with Witt a must win if they want to have any chance of getting a C.
Also, where is Cap in the discussion? They have the same record, both overall and in-region as JCU. Is JCU's SOS that much stronger than Cap's?
As I have it, Capital's SOS is 0.474 and JCU's is 0.584.
And JCU is 2-0 in the head to head.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2011, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I agree that they'll probably have to win against one of the other W's, but I usually don't take the conference tournament loss into account becuase everyone, except UAA, that's a Pool C also has to lose that one.
And this year the UAA is unlikely to have a Pool C candidate. ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2011, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I agree that they'll probably have to win against one of the other W's, but I usually don't take the conference tournament loss into account becuase everyone, except UAA, that's a Pool C also has to lose that one.
And this year the UAA is unlikely to have a Pool C candidate. ;)
Right, but I have to qualify it or else someone from Ypsilanti would instead come in and say
"Nuh, uhhhh" the UAA doesn't have to lose to get a Pool C. ;)
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2011, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2011, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I agree that they'll probably have to win against one of the other W's, but I usually don't take the conference tournament loss into account becuase everyone, except UAA, that's a Pool C also has to lose that one.
And this year the UAA is unlikely to have a Pool C candidate. ;)
Right, but I have to qualify it or else someone from Ypsilanti would instead come in and say "Nuh, uhhhh" the UAA doesn't have to lose to get a Pool C. ;)
Hey, now, you're mixing me up with 'it's not preseason' Greg - and he lives in Chicago, not Ypsi! :o ;D
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2011, 04:40:59 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 27, 2011, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: ziggy on January 27, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Last night scores, involving 'ranked' losing teams
Calvin 81 Albion 50
OWU 87 Wabash 76
Albion's C chances are likely dead, and Wabash's took a big hit last night.
I would still say that Wabash is ok for the time being. Randolph-Macon will be a win against a regionally ranked opponent and their winning percentage is still very strong. The hardest part about prognosticating a tournament field is predicting how the committee will weight WP versus SOS. If the example of Anderson last year taught us anything, it is that Wabash's WP north of .800 should look very good to the people in power.
I think I was probably mentally taking into account that Wabash has to play Witt and @ Wooster again.
Being a C candidate of course means losing in your tournament, should Wabash lose both to Witt and Woo again, they are looking at 6 losses in-region which is firmly a bubble team and their SOS as I recall isn't very good.
Bottom line for Wabash is they need to beat either Witt or Wooster to be a serious C team in all likelihood.
I'm kind of thinking that Wabash's loss last night just made their home date with Witt a must win if they want to have any chance of getting a C.
Also, where is Cap in the discussion? They have the same record, both overall and in-region as JCU. Is JCU's SOS that much stronger than Cap's?
As I have it, Capital's SOS is 0.474 and JCU's is 0.584.
And JCU is 2-0 in the head to head.
John Carroll lost its sixth today at ONU. The Streaks are 13-6, 11-6 right now in region. If JCU ends up needing a Pool C bid, its best possible in-region finish is now 19-7 (.730). (Assumes 6-0 remaining regular season, 2-1 in OAC tournament.)
JCU is flirting with needing to win the OAC tourney to make the dance, I'd think.
I haven't dug too deep into all of the numbers and scenarios yet, but my initial guess at this week's rankings is:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Wabash
4. Thiel
5. Marietta
6. PSU-Behrend
------
7. Wittenberg
8. Calvin
9. Bethany
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 19-0 16-0
--------------------------------------1.000
2. Hope 14-5 10-1
--------------------------------------.900
3. Penn St.-Behrend 16-2 16-2
4. Marietta 18-2 15-2
5. Wabash 16-3 15-3
6. Thiel 13-6 13-3
7. Wittenberg 14-5 12-3
--------------------------------------.800
8. Bethany 12-5 12-5
9. Calvin 10-10 7-3
--------------------------------------.700
10. Capital 13-5 11-5
11. Thomas More 11-8 10-5
12. John Carroll 13-6 11-6
13. Adrian 10-8 6-4
--------------------------------------.600
14. Albion 9-8 6-5
Last week's key games, winners in bold
1-26 Albion at Calvin
1-29 Hope at Calvin
.....Thiel lost to Geneva on Wed. night, making their game with Bethany next week a must win.
Next week's key games
2-2 Thiel at Bethany
2-5 Wabash at Wooster
2-5 Albion at Adrian
The 3 above MIAA's not named Hope face some pretty tough games that will make or break their Pool C chances this week, Albion could win 3 games. I'm leaving Albion and Adrian in the mix for now, though the loser of their head-to-head is probably done for Pool C. JCU I'm leaving in because they have a favorable schedule until their next meeting with Marietta in the last week of the season.
I added Thomas More who have strung together some wins and are now 10-5 in-region.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 30, 2011, 01:41:51 PM
I haven't dug too deep into all of the numbers and scenarios yet, but my initial guess at this week's rankings is:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Wabash
4. Thiel
5. Marietta
6. PSU-Behrend
------
7. Wittenberg
8. Calvin
9. Bethany
Are you counting Thiel's loss last week?
The precedent the last couple years has been to punish the MIAA for its lower number of in-region games. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hope at #4 or lower. I think PSU-Behrend is ranked, but don't think Thiel will be ranked with Witt my #6 team.
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
--------------------------------------.700
10. Capital 13-5 11-5
11. Thomas More 11-8 10-5
12. John Carroll 13-6 11-6
13. Adrian 10-8 6-4
JCU should be 11-6 in-region (unless something is labeled wrong on its schedule).
Thiel and Wittenberg looks like a close call, but I'm taking Thiel still for this set of rankings.
Primary Criteria
Winning Percentage
Thiel 0.769
Wittenberg 0.800
Strength Of Schedule
Thiel 0.512
Wittenberg 0.469
Versus Regionally Ranked (estimated)
Thiel 1-0 (win over La Roche)
Wittenberg 1-1 (win over Wabash, loss to Wooster)
No Head to Head
Common Opponents
Both beat Washington and Jefferson (Thiel twice).
Witt beat Allegheny, Thiel Lost to Allegheny.
Secondary Criteria
D3 Winning Percentage
Thiel 0.769
Wittenberg 0.765
D3 Strength of Schedule
Thiel 0.506
Wittenberg 0.498
No Common Non-D3 Opponents
Versus All D3 Regionally Ranked (estimated)
Thiel 1-0 (win over La Roche)
Wittenberg 2-1 (win over Wabash, win over Kean, loss to Wooster)
Overall Win-Loss Percentage
Thiel 0.684
Wittenberg 0.737
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 08:21:17 PM
The precedent the last couple years has been to punish the MIAA for its lower number of in-region games. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hope at #4 or lower. I think PSU-Behrend is ranked, but don't think Thiel will be ranked with Witt my #6 team.
I think the MIAA has been 'punished' for SOS reasons, not number of games reasons.
If Hope is ranked lower than #2 I'll don the orange and blue for the next rivalry game.
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 19-0 16-0
--------------------------------------1.000
2. Hope 14-5 10-1
--------------------------------------.900
3. Penn St.-Behrend 16-2 16-2
4. Marietta 18-2 15-2
5. Wabash 16-3 15-3
6. Thiel 13-6 13-3
7. Wittenberg 14-5 12-3
--------------------------------------.800
8. Bethany 12-5 12-5
9. Calvin 10-10 7-3
--------------------------------------.700
10. Capital 13-5 11-5
11. Thomas More 11-8 10-5
12. John Carroll 13-6 10-6
13. Adrian 10-8 6-4
--------------------------------------.600
14. Albion 9-8 6-5
Last week's key games, winners in bold
1-26 Albion at Calvin
1-29 Hope at Calvin
.....Thiel lost to Geneva on Wed. night, making their game with Bethany next week a must win.
Next week's key games
2-2 Bethany at Thiel
2-5 Wabash at Wooster
2-5 Albion at Adrian
The 3 above MIAA's not named Hope face some pretty tough games that will make or break their Pool C chances this week, Albion could win 3 games. I'm leaving Albion and Adrian in the mix for now, though the loser of their head-to-head is probably done for Pool C. JCU I'm leaving in because they have a favorable schedule until their next meeting with Marietta in the last week of the season.
I added Thomas More who have strung together some wins and are now 10-5 in-region.
According to the d3hoops.com schedule it is Thiel @ Bethany. Did they get it backwards?
Nevermind. Both the Bethany and Thiel websites confirm that it is Thiel @ Bethany.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 30, 2011, 10:29:45 PM
Nevermind. Both the Bethany and Thiel websites confirm that it is Thiel @ Bethany.
I do these things pretty quickly, I probably forgot which team page I was on...........and then misread it completely. :)
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 10:37:43 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 30, 2011, 10:29:45 PM
Nevermind. Both the Bethany and Thiel websites confirm that it is Thiel @ Bethany.
I do these things pretty quickly, I probably forgot which team page I was on...........and then misread it completely. :)
I wouldn't have worried about it, but I have that game posted for this week's slate on the National Pick Em Board! I was worried I had it backwards. ;)
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
I'm leaving Albion and Adrian in the mix for now, though the loser of their head-to-head is probably done for Pool C. JCU I'm leaving in because they have a favorable schedule until their next meeting with Marietta in the last week of the season.
You're still holding out hope that Adrian and Albion have a shot at a Pool C? I don't think either has a chance as they already have 4 and 5 in-region losses respectively. Usually 5 losses is the number you don't want to go past. Personally, I just don't see either of them stacking up too well against the other teams in the region ahead of them fighting for pool C's.
Quote from: ScotsFan on January 31, 2011, 10:40:45 AM
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
I'm leaving Albion and Adrian in the mix for now, though the loser of their head-to-head is probably done for Pool C. JCU I'm leaving in because they have a favorable schedule until their next meeting with Marietta in the last week of the season.
You're still holding out hope that Adrian and Albion have a shot at a Pool C? I don't think either has a chance as they already have 4 and 5 in-region losses respectively. Usually 5 losses is the number you don't want to go past. Personally, I just don't see either of them stacking up too well against the other teams in the region ahead of them fighting for pool C's.
Usually its 6 actually. Albion has 3 games this week they can win, Adrian has 2 they can win.......their in-region record % would deserve to be listed. I'm just saving myself some work by keeping them in the ranking. In past years I think I used to rank anybody with a record over .500 in-region until later in the year.
In reality no I don't think either has a great shot at Pool C they would both have to win out and with the parity in the MIAA I just can't see that happening. If I ranked only the teams I thought had a great shot it would be a very short list. This has always been designed to just give a snapshot of what's going on in the region.
I know you didn't say it, but my keeping Albion and Adrian in the picture has nothing to do with their conference affiliation being in line with mine. ;)
Gotcha. I kind of felt the same way in that the only way I see Albion or Adrian getting a Pool C is to win out until the conference tournament and that seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but it could happen... ;)
Rankings are out:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Wabash
4. Marietta
5. Wittenberg
6. Penn State-Behrend
Full List of First Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/02/ncaas-mens-regional-rankings/
There was a discussion about Thiel being left out in favor of Witt........I was reminded looking at this page that Thiel lost a game last week.
Perhaps that loss gave Witt the nod in this week's poll.
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2011, 08:29:23 PM
Offensive and defensive efficiency rating for the teams above through Sunday's games.
Top 5 OFFENSE
1. Wooster 118.5
2. John Carroll 114.9
2. Hope 114.9
4. Marietta 112.9
5. PSU-Behrend 112.6
Top 5 DEFENSE
1. Wabash 83.0*
2. Adrian 91.0
3. Wittenberg 92.0
4. Wooster 92.2
5. Thiel 92.6
* I looked hard in the Wabash stats to find an error somewhere, but came up with nothing. For D3 I think this is an insanely low number, a good chance it would be the lowest in D3.
OVERALL (200-defense + offense)
1. Wooster 226.3
2. Wabash 223.0
3. PSU-Behrend 220.6
4. Marietta 215.4
5. Hope 212.3
6. Bethany 210.6
7. John Carroll 210.4
8. Capital 209.7
9. Albion 209.1
10. Thiel 207.8
11. Wittenberg 207.6
12. Calvin 204.7
13. Adrian 203
If any of you remember Barry Robinson's old Columbus Multimedia Poll, his efficiency calculations were very similar to these.
A good thing to keep in mind is these are efficiency values vs the schedule each team has played, and as we know, each team has not played the same strength of schedule.
Efficiency Update
Top 5 OFFENSE1. Wooster 119.7
2. Hope 114.3
3. John Carroll 113.9
4. PSU-Behrend 112.6
5. Wittenberg 109.5
Top 5 DEFENSE1. Wabash 86.1
2. Thiel 90.3
3. PSU-Behrend 91.2
4. Wooster 91.5
5. Adrian 91.6
OVERALL (200-defense + offense)
1. Wooster 228.2
2. PSU-Behrend 221.4
3. Wabash 220.1
4. Bethany 213.3
5. Marietta 212.8
6. Hope 212.0
7. Wittenberg 210.1
8. Capital 209.2
9. Thiel 209.1
10. Calvin 208.7
11. John Carroll 208.4
12. Adrian 205.6
13. Albion 201.7
14. Thomas More 197.3
--I kind of like how this is shaking out, I think it gives a pretty accurate look at things.......although my confidence in the PrAC schools and AMCC schools is kind of low. Given the histories of play from those conferences, I think its likely their EFF's are a touch high because of their schedules. I'll need a deeper look into massey.com to sort that out, just haven't had time yet.
--I added Thomas More this week, and by the looks of things they probably won't factor in this much longer.
As promised a look at massey reveals the schedules don't look good for our PrAC and AMCC friends.
PSU-Behrend #374
Thiel #242
Bethany #255
For Behrend its a big yikes!.......and its actually a little softer going forward. There are only 411 teams in D3 rated by massey, that is one bad schedule.
Compare these to some other GL teams
Wooster #113
Wittenberg #132
Wabash #75
Marietta #142
Capital #118
Hope #47
Calvin #21
Ohio Northern beats Capital tonight for their 6th loss. Pool C chances officially done.
Albion and Adrian both take losses in the MIAA, not officially for Adrian but most likely done, Albion with 6 losses now done.
Wabash loses to Denison, this puts Wabash in bubble territory with Witt and Wooster still to come.
Thiel 66 Bethany 59 in the big Presidents showdown.
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2011, 10:01:49 PM
Ohio Northern beats Capital tonight for their 6th loss. Pool C chances officially done.
Albion and Adrian both take losses in the MIAA, not officially for Adrian but most likely done, Albion with 6 losses now done.
Wabash loses to Denison, this puts Wabash in bubble territory with Witt and Wooster still to come.
Capital took a huge hit with the loss to ONU. Crusaders will need to win the OAC tournament. I think they will.
Albion and Adrian are out. Both will lose at least 2 more including the MIAA tournament.
Wabash needs to beat Witt and/or Wooster. They are currently 4th in the NCAC and would meet the Scots in the tournament semi-finals if the standings hold. The season seems to be crumbling apart for the 'bash.
Quote from: WAlum on February 04, 2011, 09:35:39 AM
The season seems to be crumbling apart for the 'bash.
I think it's still ok. Wabash just got done playing a stretch of six out of seven games on the road. I know sometimes teams can play a bunch of road games in the early part of the season (Wabash did this last year, Witt did it this year), but in league play six out of seven on the road doesn't really happen. Let's keep some perspective...Wabash lost by a single point at Witt (that's a gym Wabash has only won in one time since joining the NCAC), lost to OWU on Tim Brady's career night, and lost to Denison when Jim Leffew went bonkers for about ten seconds. No need to panic. Wabash certainly didn't, stayed the course, and got a good win this afternoon.
Wabash beat Wooster, though strangely I have yet to see a score posted. ;)
This win is very big for Wabash's 'C' chances, it at least keeps them in the game. For Regional rankings I don't think Wooster loses the top spot to Hope, it should remain Wooster, Hope, Wabash.......although its conceivable Wabash moves ahead of Hope with the game vs ranked teams thing.
Albion beat Adrian which ended up having zero influence on pool C as both teams lost in midweek.
Calvin lost to Olivet which means the MIAA has no serious 2nd team for Pool C. The only viable Pool C team now would be Hope if they lost the MIAA tournament.
I too think Wooster should remain in the top spot in the regional rankings this week. But, I don't know if Wabash's win over Wooster will be enough offset their loss to Denison. I think they still remain behind Hope because it will be tough to overcome that Denison loss.
so despite seeing video and replaying it at least 3 times I still forgot Denison had beaten Wabash.
Quote from: sac on February 05, 2011, 11:17:33 PM
Calvin lost to Olivet which means the MIAA has no serious 2nd team for Pool C. The only viable Pool C team now would be Hope if they lost the MIAA tournament.
I still think Calvin is viable if they win out (until the MIAA championship game). Certainly wouldn't be a shoe in, and maybe they'd again be a 'last four out' type team, but they would be in consideration. It all depends on how the final SOS numbers come out, but so far they're looking pretty strong in that category.
Does losing to Denison on a 35 footer hurt more than beating #1 on the road helps? I'm not sure. I'd like to think that Wabash has enough "good win" capital built up this season to not get killed for the Denison buzzer beater.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2011, 01:04:18 PM
Does losing to Denison on a 35 footer hurt more than beating #1 on the road helps? I'm not sure. I'd like to think that Wabash has enough "good win" capital built up this season to not get killed for the Denison buzzer beater.
The win at Wooster will help offset the Denison loss somewhat, but not enough to help Wabash pass a team ahead of them with only one in-region loss in Hope.
And whether the Denison loss was a buzzer beater or not, doesn't matter. In the end it was an L, and that is all that matters...
Calvin's loss could end up hurting Hope in the rankings and tournament seeding.
Calvin's chances at becoming ranked at any point this year are now pretty slim, so Hope 'loses' the 1-1 with a possible third game that would have been considered 'results versus regionally ranked teams".
I wouldn't expect Wabash to move ahead of Hope either. I just don't think Wabash gets killed for that Denison loss...there's too many good wins on Wabash's record to think that what happened at Denison is representative.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
I wouldn't expect Wabash to move ahead of Hope either. I just don't think Wabash gets killed for that Denison loss...there's too many good wins on Wabash's record to think that what happened at Denison is representative.
Wabash will be fine at the #3 spot and their Pool C chances are still really good. I was talking to ziggy about the Region after Wabash lost to Denison, and we both agreed that Wabash would need to beat either Woo or Witt to stay in the Pool C race. Check that box. They're now back firmly in the mix.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
I wouldn't expect Wabash to move ahead of Hope either. I just don't think Wabash gets killed for that Denison loss...there's too many good wins on Wabash's record to think that what happened at Denison is representative.
Where was that a part of the discussion? The only thing I was pointing out to sac was that I felt Wabash would stay put at #3. Just in case you missed it:
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 06, 2011, 09:25:27 AM
I too think Wooster should remain in the top spot in the regional rankings this week. But, I don't know if Wabash's win over Wooster will be enough offset their loss to Denison. I think they still remain behind Hope because it will be tough to overcome that Denison loss.
I never said Wabash would get killed for losing to Denison. However, had they not lost to Denison, I think Wabash would have a legit argument at passing Hope in this weeks rankings. So, while that loss won't kill Wabash, it certainly hurt their chances of moving up in the rankings after beating top ranked Wooster.
I wouldn't count Olivet as dead in terms of Pool C quite yet either.
Their max 'Pool C' record would only be 0.700, but they could have a very very strong SOS. They'd have to win out until the MIAA championship, and that may not happen, but it's possible. It would involve a win at Hope.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2011, 04:58:42 PM
I wouldn't count Olivet as dead in terms of Pool C quite yet either.
Their max 'Pool C' record would only be 0.700, but they could have a very very strong SOS. They'd have to win out until the MIAA championship, and that may not happen, but it's possible. It would involve a win at Hope.
As much as I'd like to believe the MIAA could get 2, we're at a point where someone has to win out, and so far no one has shown they can win more than 2 or 3 in a row in this league if you aren't Hope.
Olivet has the 'easiest' schedule remaining of the 4 vying for 2nd, and they did beat Hope in Holland last year. But I think its pretty unlikely anyone of the 2-6 teams makes it through these next 2 weeks unscathed. Too many head to head matchups and roadtrips. :-\
Quote from: sac on February 06, 2011, 11:36:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2011, 04:58:42 PM
I wouldn't count Olivet as dead in terms of Pool C quite yet either.
Their max 'Pool C' record would only be 0.700, but they could have a very very strong SOS. They'd have to win out until the MIAA championship, and that may not happen, but it's possible. It would involve a win at Hope.
As much as I'd like to believe the MIAA could get 2, we're at a point where someone has to win out, and so far no one has shown they can win more than 2 or 3 in a row in this league if you aren't Hope.
Olivet has the 'easiest' schedule remaining of the 4 vying for 2nd, and they did beat Hope in Holland last year. But I think its pretty unlikely anyone of the 2-6 teams makes it through these next 2 weeks unscathed. Too many head to head matchups and roadtrips. :-\
I don't think it is likely that either Calvin or Olivet win out, but should either of them do so, they'll get their shot 'at the table' near the end of the selection process. I agree that winning out is a long shot, and it might not be enough to get either selected in the end, but I don't think it's quite fair to rule either as 'dead' just yet.
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 20-1 17-1
2. Hope 16-5 12-1
--------------------------------------.900
3. Marietta 20-2 17-2
4. Penn St.-Behrend 18-2 16-2
5. Thiel 15-6 15-3
6. Wittenberg 15-5 13-3
7. Wabash 17-4 16-4
--------------------------------------.800
--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6 13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6 12-6
11. Calvin 11-11 8-4
--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9 8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6
Last week's key games, winners in bold
2-2 Thiel at Bethany
2-5 Wabash at Wooster
2-5 Albion at Adrian
Next week's key games
2-9 Olivet @ Hope
2-9 Calvin @ Adrian
2-12 Hope @ Adrian
2-12 Wooster @ Wittenberg
I've decided to keep teams listed until their 7th loss. Speaking of that, give Thomas More a little love and they go out and promptly drop 2 straight, so Thomas More has dropped out after their 7th in-region loss.
OWU has 8 in-region losses but it should be noted the Bishops have won 9 in a row and play Witt on Wed. Witt won the first meeting 64-62.
Added Olivet who won 3 games last week over Albion, Adrian and Calvin to up their in region record to 7-5. Should include that Olivet has a win over John Carroll.
Anyone below .700 really can't afford another loss.
For this week
PSU-Behrend played and lost to Middle Atlantic #2 LaRoche 61-67 just two weeks after hammering them by 23.
Thats a crucial loss at first glance, I don't have all the RPI etc. etc. but I would think it will be difficult for PSU-B to get in as 'C' candidate with 4 in-region losses. Their schedule is really weak on massey, and I would guess the RPI isn't much better.
They probably need to win their tournament.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
Anyone below .700 really can't afford another loss.
I may be misremembering but I believe Wheaton (Ill.) was the only Pool C with a sub-.700 WP last season. You better have a strong SOS and some wins over regionally ranked to have a chance below .700.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6 13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6 12-6
11. Calvin 11-11 8-4
All 4 of these teams need to win out and reach the semi-finals of their respective conference tournaments to get above the .700 threshold.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9 8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6
These 3 teams cannot reach .700 without winning their conference tournament (which would make them Pool A)......all 3 would need to reach the conference Championship to have any Pool C prayer and it would be slim for each of them at best. (Olivet would be .684 win%, and I assume a pretty strong RPI)
All the teams above .800 could lose 2 games and still remain above the .700 mark (including 1 loss in their conference tournament.)
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2011, 10:12:09 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6 13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6 12-6
11. Calvin 11-11 8-4
All 4 of these teams need to win out and reach the semi-finals of their respective conference tournaments to get above the .700 threshold.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9 8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6
These 3 teams cannot reach .700 without winning their conference tournament (which would make them Pool A)......all 3 would need to reach the conference Championship to have any Pool C prayer and it would be slim for each of them at best. (Olivet would be .684 win%, and I assume a pretty strong RPI)
All the teams above .800 could lose 2 games and still remain above the .700 mark (including 1 loss in their conference tournament.)
Olivet would see a benefit if John Carroll can find a way to get ranked. If (big IF) Olivet did win out until the MIAA championship I think they'd have a decent case (considering their low percentage). They'll have a sky high SOS, but the secondary criteria won't do them any favors. Still a very long shot if everything goes their way, but there is a chance.
I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.
Top 4 should remain the same.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 08:34:30 AM
I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.
Top 4 should remain the same.
Personally, I don't think Theil gets in above Witt. I think they deserve to knock PSU-B out of the rankings, but that's about it for me. Thiel has only one win vs. a regionally ranked opponent (LaRoche) and their losses are all, what I would consider, bad in-region losses. Witt on the other hand has a win over GL #3 Wabash and one of their 3 in-region losses is to GL #1 Wooster. I just don't see enough from Thiel to justify them jumping Witt this week.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 09, 2011, 10:21:03 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 08:34:30 AM
I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.
Top 4 should remain the same.
Personally, I don't think Theil gets in above Witt. I think they deserve to knock PSU-B out of the rankings, but that's about it for me. Thiel has only one win vs. a regionally ranked opponent (LaRoche) and their losses are all, what I would consider, bad in-region losses. Witt on the other hand has a win over GL #3 Wabash and one of their 3 in-region losses is to GL #1 Wooster. I just don't see enough from Thiel to justify them jumping Witt this week.
Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 10:50:13 AM
Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.
I can't recall where I read it, and I may just be making this up, but I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere about how the committee puts more weight into games vs. regionally ranked opponents (win or lose) over games with non-ranked regional opponents. For example, Team A, with a 1-1 record vs. regionally ranked opponents might be looked at equally as favorable as Team B with a 1-0 because of the fact that Team A has played 2 games vs. regionally ranked opponents as opposed to just the 1 game Team B has played. Would this not mean that a loss to a regionally ranked opponent (i.e. Witt's loss to Wooster) would be looked at more favorably than a loss to a non-ranked regional opponent (i.e. Thiel's loss to Allegheny)?
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 09, 2011, 01:10:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 10:50:13 AM
Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.
I can't recall where I read it, and I may just be making this up, but I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere about how the committee puts more weight into games vs. regionally ranked opponents (win or lose) over games with non-ranked regional opponents. For example, Team A, with a 1-1 record vs. regionally ranked opponents might be looked at equally as favorable as Team B with a 1-0 because of the fact that Team A has played 2 games vs. regionally ranked opponents as opposed to just the 1 game Team B has played. Would this not mean that a loss to a regionally ranked opponent (i.e. Witt's loss to Wooster) would be looked at more favorably than a loss to a non-ranked regional opponent (i.e. Thiel's loss to Allegheny)?
Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.
If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.
The language in the handbook that you're looking for is (emphasis added) "in-region results versus regionally ranked teams". There's room for different interpretations of what that means with respect to how a RAC or the national selection committee wants to view such games. There is no such language about non-ranked teams.
Ultimately, I think it's wise to pay more attention to results, particularly wins, against ranked opponents. If you're on the Pool C bubble, we already know that you can lose otherwise you wouldn't be on the bubble. If I'm passing out invites to the bubble, I'm interested to know whether or not a team has shown itself capable of beating tournament-caliber teams. Teams that have wins against other tournament teams should be more attractive than teams that don't.
We also don't know to what extent Thiel's win over La Roche was counted in last week's rankings. Did the GL Region committee count it, or wasn't it really applied yet since it was an in-region game against a team that is ranked in another region? How much info do the regional committees pass back and forth during the ranking process?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.
If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.
Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS? The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 09, 2011, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.
If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.
Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS? The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?
SOS includes only in-region competition.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 09, 2011, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.
If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.
Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS? The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?
That is only for in-region D3 games.
I have Thiel at 0.514 and Witt at 0.459
-----------------------------------------------
For all D3 games (in and out of region):
Thiel is 0.503 and Witt is .494
I don't have SOS numbers that include D1, D2, NAIA, etc., but I don't think the NCAA ever factors it in.
And to be clear, I'm using the new multipliers in the in-region numbers but not the overall numbers. The handbook doesn't specify if the multipliers also exist in the secondary criteria or not.
New rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 20-1 17-1
2 Hope 16-5 12-1
3 Wabash 17-4 16-4
4 Marietta 19-2 16-2
5 Penn State-Behrend 18-2 18-1
6 Thiel 15-6 12-3
You were spot on, Slappy. You've got your finger on the pulse of these rankings. I thought Wabash might slip to #4 in these rankings this week, but clearly Wabash's three wins over regionally ranked teams (vs. zero for Marietta) is carrying significant weight. That, and Wabash's sizeable SOS advantage.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 09, 2011, 03:08:37 PM
You were spot on, Slappy. You've got your finger on the pulse of these rankings. I thought Wabash might slip to #4 in these rankings this week, but clearly Wabash's three wins over regionally ranked teams (vs. zero for Marietta) is carrying significant weight. That, and Wabash's sizeable SOS advantage.
I used last week's ratings to formulate an equation that does a decent job of predicting the rankings across the regions. Not perfect, but usually most of the teams are in there in approximately the right place. Not bad for not doing any sort of head to head or common opponent adjustment.
Basically it's:
.45 x WP + 0.50 x SOS + 0.001 x (# of regionally ranked games played) + .005 x (WP vs. regionally ranked) + .05 x (RPI including all D3 games)
could be tweaked a bit, but I like it so far.
This equation ranks the GL like this for this week:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Wabash
4. Marietta
5. Thiel
6. PSU-Behrend
--------
7. Wittenberg
8. JCU
9. Calvin
I guess Wittenberg has to do a little more to "impress" the voters. Not quite sure how a 4 loss in conference team can be ranked 3rd in the region but who knows.
Quote from: pennstghs on February 09, 2011, 05:40:46 PM
I guess Wittenberg has to do a little more to "impress" the voters. Not quite sure how a 4 loss in conference team can be ranked 3rd in the region but who knows.
Because there are a dozen other games outside of league play that also count.
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2011, 10:12:09 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6 13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6 12-6
11. Calvin 11-11 8-4
All 4 of these teams need to win out and reach the semi-finals of their respective conference tournaments to get above the .700 threshold.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9 8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6
These 3 teams cannot reach .700 without winning their conference tournament (which would make them Pool A)......all 3 would need to reach the conference Championship to have any Pool C prayer and it would be slim for each of them at best. (Olivet would be .684 win%, and I assume a pretty strong RPI)
All the teams above .800 could lose 2 games and still remain above the .700 mark (including 1 loss in their conference tournament.)
Calvin lost to Adrian tonight, the best in-region W% they can finish with is .684 and a 13-6 record. Firmly a bubble team and a tough tournament ahead of them.
Albion lost to Trine tonight and already could not finish above .700, their Pool C chances are now dead. Best possible W% is .619 with 13-8 record
Olivet lost to Hope tonight, the best in-region W% they can finish with is .632 and a 12-7 record. About 1,000,000 things would have to go perfect for Olivet to make it as a Pool C team, their SOS is their only saving grace.
Even with the win,
Adrian's best possible W% is .632 and 12-7. Like Olivet only without the strong SOS.
Or, to simplify about the MIAA tourney, Hope would still be a viable C candidate. The rest of the MIAA is 'win or go home'. ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2011, 10:15:21 PM
Or, to simplify about the MIAA tourney, Hope would still be a viable C candidate. The rest of the MIAA is 'win or go home'. ;)
Pretty much
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6 13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6 12-6
11. Calvin 11-11 8-4
Otterebein beat
Capital tonight 82-58, Capital's pool C chances are now probably dead. Best possible W% is .680 and that's with a 17-8 in-region record. I don't believe more than 7 losses has ever been selected as a Pool C team.
Thiel and Bethany both won tonight.
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Hope 18-5 14-1
2. Marietta 22-2 19-2
3. Wooster 21-2 18-2
4. Penn St.-Behrend 20-2 18-2
--------------------------------------.900
5. Thiel 17-6 17-3
6. Wittenberg 17-5 15-3
--------------------------------------.800
7. Wabash 18-5 17-5
8. Bethany 15-6 15-6
--------------------------------------.700
9. John Carroll 16-7 14-7
10. Calvin 12-12 9-5
--------------------------------------.600
Last week's key games, winners in bold
2-9 Olivet @ Hope
2-9 Calvin @ Adrian
2-12 Hope @ Adrian
2-12 Wooster @ Wittenberg
Next Week's key games
2/16 Wittenberg @ Wabash (for Pool C purposes, a must win for both)
2/16 Marietta @ Capital
2/19 Marietta @ John Carroll
A lot of carnage in the GL last week, in the OAC Capital lost twice and JCU picked up another loss effectively ending Pool C chances for Capital and making them very slim for JCU. More importantly though, those losses combined with Marietta's wins mean Marietta clinches the OAC regular season championship. This is Marietta's first basketball title since 1975, not bad for a team that finished tied for 8th in the OAC last year.
Wittenberg took the lead in the NCAC handing Wooster its 2nd in-region loss. Wabash dropped a game to Hiram. Wabash is now firmly a bubble team.
In the MIAA, Albion, Olivet, Adrian and Calvin all took at least one loss officially ending Pool C hopes for all of them although Calvin's still hold by a thread.
Thiel has just 1 games left and has won the Presidents Athletic Conference Championship.
PSU-Behrend remains 1 game back of LaRoche in the AMCC.
For the purposes of this list Capital, Albion, Olivet and Adrian drop off. All can only make the NCAA through their respective conference tournament AQ's. I'm leaving JCU and Calvin in the list, because their best possible win% is close enough to .700 that they might still have slim hopes.
We're pretty close to calling Wooster, Hope and Marietta Pool C locks if not already, one win this week would probably make that so for sure. PSU-Behrend's schedule is the only thing keeping it from being a lock imo.
Quote from: sac on February 14, 2011, 05:45:13 PM
First column overall record/second column in-region record
4. Penn St.-Behrend 20-2 18-2
--------------------------------------.900
5. Thiel 17-6 17-3
6. Wittenberg 17-5 15-3
--------------------------------------.800
7. Wabash 18-5 17-5
Thiel is actually in good shape as a 'C' candidate W% wise, but I don't think the PrAC has ever had a 2nd team make the tournament, and I'm sure their SOS isn't very good compared to the other GL region teams.
Wittenberg is in good shape even with a loss to Wabash this week, though I wouldn't recommend it, that win over Wooster may have catapulted them into the NCAA tournament. I think 2 wins this week would make them a strong 'C' candidate.
Wabash could use a win over Witt to boost their W%, they actually aren't in terrble shape, even with a loss to Witt their best possible W% as a C candidate is still over .740.
Question for those a little more savvy with the Pool C watch than I...
I'm thinking that Wabash is going to need four more wins to get invited. The last two regular season games (vs. Witt on Wednesday most notably) and then two wins in the league tournament, one of which will have to be on the home court of either Wittenberg or Wooster depending on who gets the top seed in the NCAC. The question is, do you think Wabash needs all four of those wins, or could three wins be enough provided one of those wins is against a regionally ranked team (which would give Wabash four wins over RR'd teams)?
Getting picked off by Hiram was a killer. Wabash was pretty safe until then.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 15, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Question for those a little more savvy with the Pool C watch than I...
I'm thinking that Wabash is going to need four more wins to get invited. The last two regular season games (vs. Witt on Wednesday most notably) and then two wins in the league tournament, one of which will have to be on the home court of either Wittenberg or Wooster depending on who gets the top seed in the NCAC. The question is, do you think Wabash needs all four of those wins, or could three wins be enough provided one of those wins is against a regionally ranked team (which would give Wabash four wins over RR'd teams)?
Getting picked off by Hiram was a killer. Wabash was pretty safe until then.
General rule of thumb I follow is you're safest if you make your conference Championship game if you need a Pool C bid.
Semi-final losses generally mean an end to the season except for the 'lock' teams.
Wabash is 16-5 in-region, 2 wins next week, and losing in the semi's puts them at 19-6. or .760, that's not terrible.
Making the Championship game makes it 20-6 or .769. Not a big difference between the two.
Losing to Witt this week and same above scenario's.....
lose in semi's = .720
lose in championship game = .731
Being a Pool C of course means you are at the mercy of what teams receive an AQ bid. What it takes to get a C bid changes each year based on how many 'upsets' occur in the Championship games of other tournaments. Making the Championship game and beating a regionally ranked team would surely benefit Wabash.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 15, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
Question for those a little more savvy with the Pool C watch than I...
I'm thinking that Wabash is going to need four more wins to get invited. The last two regular season games (vs. Witt on Wednesday most notably) and then two wins in the league tournament, one of which will have to be on the home court of either Wittenberg or Wooster depending on who gets the top seed in the NCAC. The question is, do you think Wabash needs all four of those wins, or could three wins be enough provided one of those wins is against a regionally ranked team (which would give Wabash four wins over RR'd teams)?
Getting picked off by Hiram was a killer. Wabash was pretty safe until then.
Wabash will be fine as long as they don't lose to any more teams they should beat. A mid-.700s WP makes for a legitimate resume and their SOS number suggests that their strong WP is not a result of a weak schedule, as does their 3-2 record versus regionally ranked.
The bottom end of the GL rankings have thinned out to the point that I firmly believe that Wabash will get their chance on the board when it comes to Pool C selection time and I don't see a glaring deficiency in their measurable criteria. Wabash should look good when the committee gets to the middle Pool C selections.
A guess at this week's rankings.
1. Wooster
2. Hope
These will be your top two. Hope's got a decent shot at the #1 ranking, but I think Wooster's still got it due to being 3-2 versus regionally ranked teams (versus 0-0 for Hope).
3. Marietta
4. Wittenberg
5. Thiel
This group is pretty tight. You could make a legit case for any order. In the end, I think it will be 'Etta's sexy 0.900 WP that gives them the nod. Thiel leads in SOS, Marietta leads in WP, and Witt (likely) leads in games versus regionally ranked.
6. Wabash
----------------------
7. Penn State-Behrend
The next tier looks like Wabash and Behrend. I'd give the spot to Wabash, but you never know what the committee will do. These are the matchups where the committee will tell us how serious they are about SOS. PSU-B's SOS is piss poor (in the bottom 8% of D3).
Week 3 Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/16/ncaa-2011-regional-rankings-week-3/
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2011, 09:08:12 AM
A guess at this week's rankings.
1. Wooster
2. Hope
These will be your top two. Hope's got a decent shot at the #1 ranking, but I think Wooster's still got it due to being 3-2 versus regionally ranked teams (versus 0-0 for Hope).
3. Marietta
4. Wittenberg
5. Thiel
This group is pretty tight. You could make a legit case for any order. In the end, I think it will be 'Etta's sexy 0.900 WP that gives them the nod. Thiel leads in SOS, Marietta leads in WP, and Witt (likely) leads in games versus regionally ranked.
6. Wabash
----------------------
7. Penn State-Behrend
The next tier looks like Wabash and Behrend. I'd give the spot to Wabash, but you never know what the committee will do. These are the matchups where the committee will tell us how serious they are about SOS. PSU-B's SOS is piss poor (in the bottom 8% of D3).
The NCAA is apparently willing to virtually disregard SOS... :-\
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 18-2 21-2
2 Hope 14-1 18-5
3 Marietta 18-2 21-2
4 Penn State-Behrend 20-2 20-3
5 Wittenberg 14-3 17-5
6 Thiel 14-3 17-6
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 18-2 21-2
2 Hope 14-1 18-5
3 Marietta 18-2 21-2
4 Penn State-Behrend 20-2 20-3
5 Wittenberg 14-3 17-5
6 Thiel 14-3 17-6
ziggy - looks that way to me too
What is Behrend's wSOS and wRPI compared to these others.
It simply can't be good.
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2011, 03:42:28 PM
What is Behrend's wSOS and wRPI compared to these others.
It simply can't be good.
Marietta doesn't have a great wRPI either. Neither school is in the Great Lakes' top nine for wRPI. Both have very good WP so you can figure how bad their wSOS must be to knock them down.
The weighting of the SOS makes wRPI goofy, though. Olivet looks good wRPI wise (5th in GL Region) due to a 0.589 wSOS despite a 0.533 WP.
I'm willing to give Marietta a pass because the OAC has traditionally been at least a good conference, the AMCC has never been a good conference.
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
I'm willing to give Marietta a pass because the OAC has traditionally been at least a good conference, the AMCC has never been a good conference.
True, plus Marietta concludes the regular season with games at Capital and at John Carroll. That will be a boost to their SOS.
Marietta's non-conference in region schedule included three home games and one road game so they started in an SOS hole to begin with.
Massey's schedule ratings has its faults, but geez a schedule of #375 out of 411 teams is just kind of pathetic.
At least Marietta's in the top half of D3.
At least they're being fair across the regions. My new best fit curve ranks the GL as:
Wooster
Hope
Witt
Marietta
Behrend
Thiel
So they're only "switching" Witt and Marietta.
I'm using:
0.5 x WP + 0.49 x SOS + 0.002 x (# of regionally ranked games) + 0.005 (pct. versus regionally ranked) + 0.05 x d3RPI
when comparing actual ranking to computed ranking, this a trendline using this equation gives a slope of 0.8269 and an r-squared coefficient of 0.8693. Not bad.
With a possible win by Witt tonight, they should in all honesty be no lower than 4th. I think its a bunch of bull-honkey they're still rated 5th.
Quote from: pennstghs on February 16, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
With a possible win by Witt tonight, they should in all honesty be no lower than 4th. I think its a bunch of bull-honkey they're still rated 5th.
On which primary criteria do you think they are being short-changed?
Quote from: ziggy on February 16, 2011, 05:48:57 PM
Quote from: pennstghs on February 16, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
With a possible win by Witt tonight, they should in all honesty be no lower than 4th. I think its a bunch of bull-honkey they're still rated 5th.
On which primary criteria do you think they are being short-changed?
I would say wins over regionally ranked opponents would be a start. Witt has wins over Wooster and Wabash. PSU-B has a win over LaRoche.
And I'm just guessing that Witt's SOS is a bit higher than PSU-B's as well?
Now if you will excuse me, I need to go check my temp as there must be something wrong with me seeing as how I am defending Witt... :P
Albion beat Hope tonight, I think this makes it nearly impossible for Wooster to not be the #1 team in the region if they take care of business.........and today's poll suggests they even have a 1 loss wiggle room probably.
Wabash beats Wittenberg
Capital beat Marietta
Too tired to figure all the ramifications of this stuff, but suffice it to say.....a wild night in the region.
That was a very big must win for Wabash and Pool C hopes I do know that.
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2011, 10:21:57 PM
Wabash beats Wittenberg
Capital beat Marietta
Too tired to figure all the ramifications of this stuff, but suffice it to say.....a wild night in the region.
That was a very big must win for Wabash and Pool C hopes I do know that.
It'll be Wooster, then Hope, then the next four teams that get pulled out of a hat.
I think a win over Oberlin would lead pipe lock up a Pool C for Wabash.
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2011, 10:18:45 PM
Albion beat Hope tonight, I think this makes it nearly impossible for Wooster to not be the #1 team in the region if they take care of business.........and today's poll suggests they even have a 1 loss wiggle room probably.
And Marietta and Wittenberg also lost. A bit of breathing room potentially opened up in the GL rankings for Wooster, as Seinfeld noted in the NCAC room.
Regular season championship and hosting rights now come down to Saturday's results in the NCAC. Neither Wooster (hosting OWU) and Wittenberg (at Hiram) have automatic wins on Saturday—both of those games could be tough battles. As Wittenberg and Hiram play at 3 p.m., Wooster will know the situation going into its 7:30 p.m. contest.
[Edit: I see the other losses had been noted...]
My crazy-fangled formula now gives:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. PSU-B
4. Thiel
5. Wabash
6. Wittenberg
-----
7. Marietta
Next best rated team would be Bethany, but they're a long way away.
3 through 6 above are relatively close, so the order isn't guaranteed. They all seem to be in Pool C range at the moment. Marietta would be on the bubble.
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Yep. If the season ended today, I think they'd get two teams in.
It's sad, but that's what happens when the NCAA continually rewards teams with good winning percentages but poor SOS.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Yep. If the season ended today, I think they'd get two teams in.
It's sad, but that's what happens when the NCAA continually rewards teams with good winning percentages but poor SOS.
The possibility of an AMCC team reaching the board for consideration looks good from where we sit now but it remains to be seen what their chances of actually being picked for a Pool C will be considering they are handed out Nationally. Rather than leading to a second AMCC team in the tournament, it could lead to an under-representation of Great Lakes teams in the tournament as Pool C candidates from other regions are selected instead.
Best case scenario is that Calvin wins the MIAA tournament since Hope is (or is nearly) a Pool C lock. ;)
For the past two seasons that I've been following the rankings closely, the NCAA seem to generally weigh SOS and WP 50-50 against each other. That seems OK at a glance, but the raw numbers don't tell the whole story.
The total difference between the best and worst WP is currently 0.958 (but it's theoretically possible to get 1.000).
The total difference between the best and worst SOS is currently (according to my records) is 0.236 (.618 to 0.383).
It's not possible to get SOS numbers that are either extremely high or extremely low.
So, by weighing the raw numbers equally against each other, you're really weighing WP four times more (because there's four times as much variability in the numbers).
That's why RPI gives the SOS number three times as much weight as the WP number. To try to counterbalance some of that.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Don't forget at least one of those two will pick up another loss in their tournament, that could be enough to keep either team out with their schedules.
Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Yep. If the season ended today, I think they'd get two teams in.
It's sad, but that's what happens when the NCAA continually rewards teams with good winning percentages but poor SOS.
The possibility of an AMCC team reaching the board for consideration looks good from where we sit now but it remains to be seen what their chances of actually being picked for a Pool C will be considering they are handed out Nationally. Rather than leading to a second AMCC team in the tournament, it could lead to an under-representation of Great Lakes teams in the tournament as Pool C candidates from other regions are selected instead.
Best case scenario is that Calvin wins the MIAA tournament since Hope is (or is nearly) a Pool C lock. ;)
I changed my spreadsheet to rank the regions according to my best fit equation (on the previous page). Applying this to the selection process gives La Roche the Pool A and PSU-Behrend the #8 Pool C bid.
Sad.
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2011, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Don't forget at least one of those two will pick up another loss in their tournament, that could be enough to keep either team out with their schedules.
But it will probably be to a regionally ranked team, so it may not hurt all that much. I hate when conference are split across regions. It seems like it gives more opportunity for teams to become regionally ranked.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 12:59:36 PM
For the past two seasons that I've been following the rankings closely, the NCAA seem to generally weigh SOS and WP 50-50 against each other. That seems OK at a glance, but the raw numbers don't tell the whole story.
The total difference between the best and worst WP is currently 0.958 (but it's theoretically possible to get 1.000).
The total difference between the best and worst SOS is currently (according to my records) is 0.236 (.618 to 0.383).
It's not possible to get SOS numbers that are either extremely high or extremely low.
So, by weighing the raw numbers equally against each other, you're really weighing WP four times more (because there's four times as much variability in the numbers).
That's why RPI gives the SOS number three times as much weight as the WP number. To try to counterbalance some of that.
KS- thanks for the breakdown on this! It really feels like the NCAA folks are playing with numbers and indicators that they really just don't fully understand. Between this over-reliance on WP and the home/away multipliers--it seems to be a continual story of using good data to produce incorrect interpretations.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2011, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Don't forget at least one of those two will pick up another loss in their tournament, that could be enough to keep either team out with their schedules.
But it will probably be to a regionally ranked team, so it may not hurt all that much. I hate when conference are split across regions. It seems like it gives more opportunity for teams to become regionally ranked.
Yes it does. In most years see the UAA, and even this year I think you can raise an eyebrow toward Brandeis, proably not ranked if the whole UAA were in 1 region.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Yep. If the season ended today, I think they'd get two teams in.
It's sad, but that's what happens when the NCAA continually rewards teams with good winning percentages but poor SOS.
This will really rub me the wrong way if, say Wooster wins the automatic from the NCAC. I would consider both Wabash and Witt as better Pool C candidates than either Behrend or LaRoche. But, there is the distinct possiblity that one of Witt or Wabash would be staying home while the less deserving AMCC team would more than likely take their bid.
I guess I have to hope for at least one of them to lose before the AMCC finals.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 03:15:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2011, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 17, 2011, 11:58:19 AM
I just had a scary thought looking at your updated rankings ks. Is there any chance that the AMCC gets TWO teams in the tournament? :o ??? If ever there was a conference that was so undeserving of getting an at large bid, I would have to say the AMCC would be at or near the top of the list. Yet, because LaRoche and PSU-B are both regionally ranked in different regions, is it a possiblity that one gets a C if they happen to both win out up until the AMCC championship game? God I hope not?!
Yep. If the season ended today, I think they'd get two teams in.
It's sad, but that's what happens when the NCAA continually rewards teams with good winning percentages but poor SOS.
This will really rub me the wrong way if, say Wooster wins the automatic from the NCAC. I would consider both Wabash and Witt as better Pool C candidates than either Behrend or LaRoche. But, there is the distinct possiblity that one of Witt or Wabash would be staying home while the less deserving AMCC team would more than likely take their bid.
I guess I have to hope for at least one of them to lose before the AMCC finals.
The thing is, you never really know. I really thought that it was a shame that the HCAC got a second team in and that they wouldn't be competitive in the tournament. Didn't happen, Anderson ended up beating St. Thomas in the first round and Defiance nearly took out UW-Whitewater. Sometimes there are teams that end up being more deserving afterall.
Indeed -- everyone gets new life in the tournament and sometimes a team that comes in on a roll but is less recognized can be really dangerous.
Yes, but the AMCC has traditionally never fared well in the tournament. I'm not so inclined to think LaRoche or Behrend will reverse that trend.
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 23-2 20-2
--------------------------------------.900
2. Hope 19-6 15-2
3. Marietta 23-3 20-3
3. Penn St.-Behrend 22-3 20-3
5. Thiel 18-6 18-3
--------------------------------------.800
6. Wabash 20-5 19-5
7. Wittenberg 17-7 15-5
--------------------------------------.700
8. Bethany 16-7 16-7
9. Calvin 14-12 11-5
10. John Carroll 17-8 15-8
--------------------------------------.600
Last week's key games, winners in bold
2/16 Wittenberg @ Wabash (for Pool C purposes, a must win for both)
2/16 Marietta @ Capital
2/19 Marietta @ John Carroll
PSU-Behrend.....I have an issue with Behrend, d3hoops is listing all 25 of its games as in-region, I was sure Franciscan games didn't count. For now I'm listing them as 20-3 in-region. Also I've had their record wrong for 2 weeks and have corrected the missing loss.
Knightslappy is considering Wooster and Hope 'cold-hard-lead pipe locks' for the tournament so we'll go with that. Although I could see Hope running into trouble if they were to lose in the semi-finals at home to either just barely above .500 Olivet or Adrian.
Marietta was a missed shot away from dropping two this week, despite the solid overall record their potential downfall might be a weak SOS/RPI. They needed that win today to be safe. They go into the OAC tournament as the top seed having just lost to #3 seed Capital, and beating #2 JCU at the buzzer.
PSU-Behrend and Thiel both did what they had to do this week, I'm really rooting for both of these to win their respective conference tournaments so they can stay out of the Pool C mix.
Wabash was the big winner of the week beating Witt and then Witt getting beat again. Wabash has at least given themselves a good chance......then pray their aren't a lot of upsets.
Wittenberg went from solid Pool C to bubble team in 4 days, they really need to get to the NCAC final now to have a shot.
Franciscan is a year 4 provisional, so all of their games DO count for regional purposes (3rd and 4th year teams are counted).
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2011, 10:52:42 PM
First column overall record/second column in-region record
1. Wooster 23-2 20-2
--------------------------------------.900
2. Hope 19-6 15-2
3. Marietta 23-3 20-3
3. Penn St.-Behrend 22-3 20-3
5. Thiel 18-6 18-3
--------------------------------------.800
6. Wabash 20-5 19-5
7. Wittenberg 17-7 15-5
--------------------------------------.700
8. Bethany 16-7 16-7
9. Calvin 14-12 11-5
10. John Carroll 17-8 15-8
--------------------------------------.600
Last week's key games, winners in bold
2/16 Wittenberg @ Wabash (for Pool C purposes, a must win for both)
2/16 Marietta @ Capital
2/19 Marietta @ John Carroll
PSU-Behrend.....I have an issue with Behrend, d3hoops is listing all 25 of its games as in-region, I was sure Franciscan games didn't count. For now I'm listing them as 20-3 in-region. Also I've had their record wrong for 2 weeks and have corrected the missing loss.
Knightslappy is considering Wooster and Hope 'cold-hard-lead pipe locks' for the tournament so we'll go with that. Although I could see Hope running into trouble if they were to lose in the semi-finals at home to either just barely above .500 Olivet or Adrian.
Marietta was a missed shot away from dropping two this week, despite the solid overall record their potential downfall might be a weak SOS/RPI. They needed that win today to be safe. They go into the OAC tournament as the top seed having just lost to #3 seed Capital, and beating #2 JCU at the buzzer.
PSU-Behrend and Thiel both did what they had to do this week, I'm really rooting for both of these to win their respective conference tournaments so they can stay out of the Pool C mix.
Wabash was the big winner of the week beating Witt and then Witt getting beat again. Wabash has at least given themselves a good chance......then pray their aren't a lot of upsets.
Wittenberg went from solid Pool C to bubble team in 4 days, they really need to get to the NCAC final now to have a shot.
I agree with these assessments.
Witt's Pool C chances may have evaporated. They'll at least need to get to the NCAC finals, but even then, they'll need to hope for few to no upsets around the country. I currently have them as the last team out.
Hope is a team that I feel pretty confident about, but you're right, some funky things could go on with their SOS if they were to lose in the semis. They're on the edge of the locks, but we're still talking locks here. These are the teams that I more or less think would get in if ALL the leagues had upsets.
Here's all the Great Lakes Region Tournaments, including the AMCC
Northcoast
Tuesday, Feb. 22
#8 Allegheny at #1 Wooster, 7:30
#7 Denison at #2 Wittenberg, 7:30
#6 Kenyon at #3 Wabash, 7:30
#5 Hiram at #4 Ohio Wesleyan, 6:00
Friday, Feb. 25
at highest remaining seed after quarters
6:00/8:00 with top seed in later slot
Saturday, Feb. 26
7:00 at semifinal site
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
First Round - Wednesday, February 23
#8 Alma (2-12, 6-18) at #1 Hope (12-2, 19-6), 7:30 p.m.
#7 Trine (4-10, 12-13) at #2 Calvin (9-5, 14-11), 7:30 p.m.
#6 Kalamazoo (6-8, 9-16) at #3 Albion (8-6, 14-11), 7:30 p.m.
#5 Adrian (7-7, 12-12) at #4 Olivet (8-6, 13-12), 7:30 p.m.
Semifinals - Friday, February 25
At highest seed, 6 p.m. and 8:15 p.m.
Championship - Saturday, February 26
At Friday site, 7:30 p.m.
Ohio Athletic Conference
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011
Game 1: #8 Wilmington at #1 Marietta College • 7:30 p.m.
Game 2: #7 Mount Union at #2 John Carroll • 7:30 p.m.
Game 3: #6 Otterbein at #3 Capital • 7:30 p.m.
Game 4: #5 Heidelberg at #4 Ohio Northern • 8 p.m.
OAC Semifinals: Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 • All Game Times TBA
Game 5: Game 1 Winner vs. Game 4 Winner at Higher Seed
Game 6: Game 2 Winner vs. Game 3 Winner at Higher Seed
OAC Finals: Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011 • 7:30 p.m.
Game 7: Lowest Remaining Seed at Highest Remaining Seed
Presidents Athletic Conference
First Round - Tuesday, February 22, 2011
#8 Waynesburg at #1 Thiel - 7 p.m.
#5 Thomas More at #4 W&J - 7 p.m.
#7 Grove City at #2 Saint Vincent - 8 p.m.
#6 Westminster at #3 Bethany - 8 p.m.
Semifinals - Thursday, February 24, 2011
Lowest seed at highest seed - 7 p.m.
Middle remaining seeds (at higher seed) - 7 p.m.
Finals - Saturday, February 26, 2011
at highest remaining seed - 7:30 p.m.
AMCC
First Round - Tuesday, Feb. 22 - 7p
#5 Mount Aloysius at #4 Hilbert
#6 Pitt-Bradford at #3 Medaille
Semifinals - Friday, Feb. 25
Hosted by La Roche
1p: Winner of 4v5 vs. #1La Roche
3p: Winner of 3v6 vs. #2 PS-Behrend
Thanks sac. Great work! ;D
Here's all the Great Lakes Region Tournaments with results and pairings........updated as the finals come in.
Northcoast
Tuesday, Feb. 22
#8 Allegheny 57 at #1 Wooster 62
#7 Denison 63 at #2 Wittenberg 77
#6 Kenyon 61 at #3 Wabash 72
#5 Hiram 85 at #4 Ohio Wesleyan 100
Friday, Feb. 25
at Wooster
#3 Wabash vs #2 Wittenberg, 6pm
#4 Ohio Wesleyan vs #1 Wooster, 8pm
Saturday, Feb. 26
7:00 at Wooster
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
First Round - Wednesday, February 23
#8 Alma (2-12, 6-18) at #1 Hope (12-2, 19-6), 7:30 p.m.
#7 Trine (4-10, 12-13) at #2 Calvin (9-5, 14-11), 7:30 p.m.
#6 Kalamazoo (6-8, 9-16) at #3 Albion (8-6, 14-11), 7:30 p.m.
#5 Adrian (7-7, 12-12) at #4 Olivet (8-6, 13-12), 7:30 p.m.
Semifinals - Friday, February 25
At highest seed, 6 p.m. and 8:15 p.m.
Championship - Saturday, February 26
At Friday site, 7:30 p.m.
Ohio Athletic Conference
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011
Game 1: #8 Wilmington 73 at #1 Marietta College 84
Game 2: #7 Mount Union 68 at #2 John Carroll 75
Game 3: #6 Otterbein 47 at #3 Capital 76
Game 4: #5 Heidelberg 80 at #4 Ohio Northern 77 2OT
OAC Semifinals: Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 • All Game Times TBA
Game 5: #5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
Game 6: #3 Capital at #2 John Carroll
OAC Finals: Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011 • 7:30 p.m.
Game 7: Lowest Remaining Seed at Highest Remaining Seed
Presidents Athletic Conference
First Round - Tuesday, February 22, 2011
#8 Waynesburg 53 at #1 Thiel 73
#5 Thomas More 58 at #4 W&J 57
#7 Grove City 54 at #2 Saint Vincent 72
#6 Westminster 58 at #3 Bethany 90
Semifinals - Thursday, February 24, 2011
#5 Thomas More at #1 Thiel 7 p.m.
#3 Bethany at #2 Saint Vencent 7 p.m.
Finals - Saturday, February 26, 2011
at highest remaining seed - 7:30 p.m.
AMCC
First Round - Tuesday, Feb. 22 - 7p
#5 Mount Aloysius 60 at #4 Hilbert 102
#6 Pitt-Bradford 85 at #3 Medaille 97
Semifinals - Friday, Feb. 25
Hosted by La Roche
1p: #4 Hilbert vs. #1 La Roche
3p: #3 Medaile vs #2 PSU-Behrend
Final Regional Rankings are out before Selection Sunday: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
We've got issues.
Hope's and Marietta's numbers appear right but there is no justification for Marietta's jump above the Dutchmen. Hope has the slightly better WP with a much better weighted SOS and neither team has any results against regionally ranked opponents.
The NCAA is neglecting to count a PSU-Behrend loss thus making their WP look better than it actually is. In reality, their WP is nearly identical to Hope but with a weighted SOS even worse than Marietta's. PSU-B is 3-2 versus regionally ranked, however, but I can't help but think they are getting more credit than they deserve due to the WP error.
The rankings don't account for last night's results...this list was out of date before it even hit the street. :-\
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:13:25 PM
The rankings don't account for last night's results...this list was out of date before it even hit the street. :-\
Understood, the issues I stated above are all in reference to games through 2/20
Quote from: ziggy on February 23, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
The NCAA is neglecting to count a PSU-Behrend loss thus making their WP look better than it actually is. In reality, their WP is nearly identical to Hope but with a weighted SOS even worse than Marietta's. PSU-B is 3-2 versus regionally ranked, however, but I can't help but think they are getting more credit than they deserve due to the WP error.
I'm not sure their game versus Clark should be counted as in-region. Clark is 499 miles away, in the NE region, and Admin region 1. This may be incorrect on my sheet and D3hoops.com.
I know this forum kind of looks down on PSU-B, but three wins vs. regionally ranked teams vs. zero for Hope is significant. The math will tell you that Behrend's schedule is awful, but somewhere in that awful schedule they've played, and beaten, some regionally ranked teams. Those results have to matter, don't they?
I will check the game against Clark in our system... thank you.
As for the answer... I don't have one... but there is a chance they went to secondary criteria for these two teams for whatever reason the committee chose.
If that was case, consider these parameters:
Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
Results versus common non Division III opponents.
Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
Overall win-loss percentage.
Results versus all common opponents.
Overall DIII strength of schedule.
wally... PSB's results against regional ranked opponents would out-weigh in some cases those who haven't played any games against regionally ranked teams... you are correct.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:21:35 PM
I will check the game against Clark in our system... thank you.
As for the answer... I don't have one... but there is a chance they went to secondary criteria for these two teams for whatever reason the committee chose.
If that was case, consider these parameters:
Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
Results versus common non Division III opponents.
Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
Overall win-loss percentage.
Results versus all common opponents.
Overall DIII strength of schedule.
wally... PSB's results against regional ranked opponents would out-weigh in some cases those who haven't played any games against regionally ranked teams... you are correct.
I'm quite familiar with the primary and secondary criteria.
I suppose you could say that Hope and Marietta are completely deadlocked in the primary criteria except for the wSOS. That point is a blowout in Hope's favor (0.518 vs. 0.470). To put it in perspective, Hope's wSOS is about 70th percentile(ish) while Marietta's is 25th(ish). That is a big difference.
Secondary is secondary for a reason. I would have to see a really compelling reason in the secondary criteria to accept Marietta over Hope but there isn't one.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:20:30 PM
I know this forum kind of looks down on PSU-B, but three wins vs. regionally ranked teams vs. zero for Hope is significant. The math will tell you that Behrend's schedule is awful, but somewhere in that awful schedule they've played, and beaten, some regionally ranked teams. Those results have to matter, don't they?
You're right, however...
Hope hasn't played a regionally ranked team but their wSOS will tell you that Hope has played, and beaten, some good teams.
wSOS and results versus regionally ranked essentially have the same aim: to differentiate between similar looking WPs. I suppose it comes down to personal preference. Hope has played a better overall schedule (objective) while PSU-B has played five "tough" games (subjective).
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:20:30 PM
I know this forum kind of looks down on PSU-B, but three wins vs. regionally ranked teams vs. zero for Hope is significant. The math will tell you that Behrend's schedule is awful, but somewhere in that awful schedule they've played, and beaten, some regionally ranked teams. Those results have to matter, don't they?
LaRoche is one of those regionally ranked teams and somehow they've managed to play a schedule worse than PSU-B's according to massey. One of the others is Medaille who also managed to play a schedule ranked worse than PSU-B's.
#372, #373 and #374
The term "regionally ranked" means nothing when the quality of play from one region to another is so drastically different.
It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference. The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6. Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked. Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams. That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.
To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions. I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.
That is up to the committee in the region to decide. I am just trying to point out they could have gone to that criteria to make a decision.
I am looking at the same numbers you are... and trying to determine the reason Marietta is above Hope. The only other thought I have is that Marietta has played more in-region games in general - but I am not positive about that either and I am not sure if the NCAA is counting the PSB game or not.
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:20:30 PM
I know this forum kind of looks down on PSU-B, but three wins vs. regionally ranked teams vs. zero for Hope is significant. The math will tell you that Behrend's schedule is awful, but somewhere in that awful schedule they've played, and beaten, some regionally ranked teams. Those results have to matter, don't they?
LaRoche is one of those regionally ranked teams and somehow they've managed to play a schedule worse than PSU-B's according to massey. One of the others is Medaille who also managed to play a schedule ranked worse than PSU-B's.
#372, #373 and #374
The term "regionally ranked" means nothing when the quality of play from one region to another is so drastically different.
It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference. The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6. Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked. Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams. That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.
To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions. I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.
Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:38:49 PM
Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.
#342 is significantly better?
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2011, 04:41:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:38:49 PM
Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.
#342 is significantly better?
I agree with sac but since some people have a problem with Massey let's look at wSOS
LaRoche: 0.477
Medaille: 0.460
Is it just me or are we looking at a regional ranking pyramid scheme?
La Roche is 110 in the normal Massey Ratings... and 21 in the BCS version... I call that significant.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
La Roche is 110 in the normal Massey Ratings... and 21 in the BCS version... I call that significant.
schedule strength not their ranking
We're shooting the messenger by yelling at Dave, he's just throwing out ideas, but I hate it that the committee doesn't take SOS seriously.
Marietta's SOS is .470
Hope's is .518
That's akin to a difference of 0.131 in winning percentage (based on the high-low spreads of each category). :o
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
The term "regionally ranked" means nothing when the quality of play from one region to another is so drastically different.
I think the term "regionally ranked" means everything because that's what the NCAA focuses in on. Now...as to how teams get ranked and get access to those regionally ranked teams...
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference. The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6. Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked. Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams. That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.
To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions. I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.
I agree with these points. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding). Should probably also think about coralling an entire conference into one region for rankings purposes. But that's something for the rules committee to think about for the future.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference. The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6. Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked. Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams. That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.
To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions. I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.
I agree with these points. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding). Should probably also think about coralling an entire conference into one region for rankings purposes. But that's something for the rules committee to think about for the future.
KnightSlappy and I were discussing these sort of things on Saturday afternoon. We had plenty of really good ideas for fixing the system but there is one main problem: the NCAA doesn't really care.
Think about it; they take arbitrarily defined regions (with arbitrary provisions for expanding what constitutes a "regional" game) and arbitrarily apply a set of primary and secondary criteria. In the end a tournament is created and the right team probably wins but that doesn't mean the field was correct. The ends always justify the means with the NCAA.
So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A
Verdict: Marietta
How does this even get into the secondary criteria?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2011, 05:03:09 PM
So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A
Verdict: Marietta
How does this even get into the secondary criteria?
The irony is that only a Hope College cosmo could know the answer to this question.
My initial thought regarding Marietta and Hope was that Marietta has played so many more games in region that the extra loss is outweighed by the four extra wins...but that's not what the criteria says. The criteria clearly specifies win percentage, so the total number of games ought to be irrelevant. Ought to be...I think it's clear that it isn't. Marietta is either getting credit for those extra wins or Hope is getting punished for their non-region losses...neither of which should be happening per the criteria (I have other thoughts on non-regional and non-D3 games which I'll save for another time).
Quote from: ziggy on February 23, 2011, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2011, 05:03:09 PM
So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A
Verdict: Marietta
How does this even get into the secondary criteria?
The irony is that only a Hope College cosmo could know the answer to this question.
Now ther's the Ziggy we know and love! ;) For a minute I thought you'd gone all warm and fuzzy on us. :D ;D ;)
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 05:10:21 PM
My initial thought regarding Marietta and Hope was that Marietta has played so many more games in region that the extra loss is outweighed by the four extra wins...but that's not what the criteria says. The criteria clearly specifies win percentage, so the total number of games ought to be irrelevant. Ought to be...I think it's clear that it isn't. Marietta is either getting credit for those extra wins or Hope is getting punished for their non-region losses...neither of which should be happening per the criteria (I have other thoughts on non-regional and non-D3 games which I'll save for another time).
Hope seemed to be punished last year for their fewer number of total in-region games and maybe also in previous years as well and I think it is pretty obvious that the NCAA is sending Hope another message this year. Quit scheduling so many non-conference games vs. NAIA and non-regional opponents and pad your non-conference scedule with a bunch of in-region cupcakes and you will be better off for it. ;)
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:53:50 PMI'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).
It's the top X% of each region--I don't recall what the value of X is, but its the same across the regions. The Northeast Region has almost twice the number of men's teams as the GL, so they get almost twice as many teams ranked.
Heckuva night in the MIAA tonight.
Indeed, quite a night in the MIAA.
Reading these posts, I say it once again: all D3 games should count. Get rid of the regional criteria.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2011, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:53:50 PMI'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).
It's the top X% of each region--I don't recall what the value of X is, but its the same across the regions. The Northeast Region has almost twice the number of men's teams as the GL, so they get almost twice as many teams ranked.
Bingo.
I believe it's one ranking spot for every 6.5 teams in the region, similar to the access ratio. Therefore it's actually trying to be exactly fair, rather than the unfairness being claimed in this conversation.
The Great Lakes is smaller. If we ranked, say, six teams in every region, it would be twice as hard to get a ranked team on your schedule in the Northeast as it would be in the East.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2011, 12:11:05 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2011, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 23, 2011, 04:53:50 PMI'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).
It's the top X% of each region--I don't recall what the value of X is, but its the same across the regions. The Northeast Region has almost twice the number of men's teams as the GL, so they get almost twice as many teams ranked.
Bingo.
I believe it's one ranking spot for every 6.5 teams in the region, similar to the access ratio. Therefore it's actually trying to be exactly fair, rather than the unfairness being claimed in this conversation.
The Great Lakes is smaller. If we ranked, say, six teams in every region, it would be twice as hard to get a ranked team on your schedule in the Northeast as it would be in the East.
But its not fair when comparing teams across different regions. It absolutely gives a big advantage to teams from bigger regions.
Can you go into a little more detail about that?
If it comes down to a C bid.......and for kicks lets compare a GL team to a NE team and for kicks pretend each team played every ranked team in their region once. All of their other criteria are equal.
The GL team will have 5 games the NE team will have 9 games, this is an inherent advantage to the NE team. Who's to say the #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams in the Great Lakes aren't just as good or better than the 7, 8, 9 or 10 teams in the Northeast? But the GL team gets no credit for playing them but the NE team does.
There are simply fewer opportunities for the smaller regions to play ranked teams because there are fewer ranked teams..........how fair is it to compare one team from a small region to another that can play more ranked teams?
I know its one criteria, but I feel its one that is very unfair to the smaller regions like the Great Lakes.
Well, that could be the case regardless of the number of teams ranked. Is the seventh-best team out of the 40 in the Great Lakes better than the 11th team in the 73-team Northeast? Maybe, maybe not. But one is in the top 15% of the region and the other isn't.
Why should it be easier to get ranked in one region than another?
I liken it to when every region used to get eight teams in the tournament no matter what. So in the East or Atlantic that was a 16-12 team while in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast you had to go 21-6 to get in.
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2011, 01:07:03 AM
If it comes down to a C bid.......and for kicks lets compare a GL team to a NE team and for kicks pretend each team played every ranked team in their region once. All of their other criteria are equal.
The GL team will have 5 games the NE team will have 9 games, this is an inherent advantage to the NE team. Who's to say the #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams in the Great Lakes aren't just as good or better than the 7, 8, 9 or 10 teams in the Northeast? But the GL team gets no credit for playing them but the NE team does.
There are simply fewer opportunities for the smaller regions to play ranked teams because there are fewer ranked teams..........how fair is it to compare one team from a small region to another that can play more ranked teams?
I know its one criteria, but I feel its one that is very unfair to the smaller regions like the Great Lakes.
KnightSlappy and I discussed a system in which the teams still build a resume based on regional play (as it is now) but then it goes a step further to determine who is "ranked" on a national basis into a top 25 or 35 or 50. It would be the same process as selecting Pool C bids. This ensures that the teams truly deemed to be the best are counted as ranked opponents rather than whomever happens to be the best of an arbitrarily defined geographical area.
OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.
#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll
OAC tournament page (http://pioneers.marietta.edu/sports/2011/1/15/MBB_2011OACTournament.aspx) with links for live stats/audio/video.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 24, 2011, 11:02:55 AM
OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.
#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll
OAC tournament page (http://pioneers.marietta.edu/sports/2011/1/15/MBB_2011OACTournament.aspx) with links for live stats/audio/video.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is a new schedule for the OAC. In the past, they had the quarterfinals on Wednesday and then the semifinals on Friday and the championship on Saturday. The players probably like this better, but it does make for a little more work logistically, I would think. Doing something like this in the NCAC may not work because of the long travel that Wabash (and soon DePauw) in particular already have when going to Wooster, that they could potentially have to miss three days of school for the tournament. The same would probably be true if Allegheny had to to go Witt or especially Indiana.
Quote from: seinfeld on February 24, 2011, 12:36:03 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 24, 2011, 11:02:55 AM
OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.
#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll
OAC tournament page (http://pioneers.marietta.edu/sports/2011/1/15/MBB_2011OACTournament.aspx) with links for live stats/audio/video.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is a new schedule for the OAC. In the past, they had the quarterfinals on Wednesday and then the semifinals on Friday and the championship on Saturday. The players probably like this better, but it does make for a little more work logistically, I would think. Doing something like this in the NCAC may not work because of the long travel that Wabash (and soon DePauw) in particular already have when going to Wooster, that they could potentially have to miss three days of school for the tournament. The same would probably be true if Allegheny had to to go Witt or especially Indiana.
It does appear to be new this year, as the OAC board from last year indicates the Wednesday/Friday/Saturday schedule, with the Friday/Saturday games all at the highest remaining seed after the quarters.
Unfortunately, with such limited dicussion on the OAC board, no one has commented on why the league decided on this new structure. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the switch. It's still the same number of trips, just a different distribution throughout the week. Also, it makes for a tournament without the possibility of any neutral court games--perhaps the OAC felt that avoiding neutral court games would improve attendance?
It's also interesting since the NCAA is using its lopsided SOS weighting factors for home/away games vs. neutral court games...probably won't matter for the OAC this year, but I could see a year where you'd want to be the team traveling rather than hosting all week in the tournament if the NCAA keeps similar home/neutral/away factors.
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 24, 2011, 01:18:11 PM
It's also interesting since the NCAA is using its lopsided SOS weighting factors for home/away games vs. neutral court games...probably won't matter for the OAC this year, but I could see a year where you'd want to be the team traveling rather than hosting all week in the tournament if the NCAA keeps similar home/neutral/away factors.
You are absolutely right.
The NCAA's justifies the fairness of the weighting by saying that it evens out in conference where there is a balance in home and road games and encourages teams to test themselves on the road at least some of the time out of conference. That is good in theory but it ends up punishing the team that is "rewarded" by hosting conference tournament games. Then again, the NCAA has never made a point to look at the whole picture, only the part that fits their model.
I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.
Quote from: seinfeld on February 24, 2011, 01:24:05 PM
I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.
Yeah. With this structure--all teams play at the highest remaining seed--it's theoretically possible for every game in the tournament to be played at a different venue. If the bottom four seeds sweep the opening night (this happened once in the OAC, I believe), teams #5 and #6 would host #8 and #7, respectively, on Thursday. If #7 and #8 then won, #7 would host the final. All teams 1-7 would have hosted one game of the tournament. That would be one heck of a tourney!
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 24, 2011, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: seinfeld on February 24, 2011, 01:24:05 PM
I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.
Yeah. With this structure--all teams play at the highest remaining seed--it's theoretically possible for every game in the tournament to be played at a different venue. If the bottom four seeds sweep the opening night (this happened once in the OAC, I believe), teams #5 and #6 would host #8 and #7, respectively, on Thursday. If #7 and #8 then won, #7 would host the final. All teams 1-7 would have hosted one game of the tournament. That would be one heck of a tourney!
Not to mention the havoc it would create for someone's Pool C chances
Capital 74
John Carroll 81
Heidelberg 55
Marietta 70
Championship at Marietta on Saturday.
Has Marietta become a "lock?"
UPDATED for Thursday games
Northcoast
Tuesday, Feb. 22
#8 Allegheny 57 at #1 Wooster 62
#7 Denison 63 at #2 Wittenberg 77
#6 Kenyon 61 at #3 Wabash 72
#5 Hiram 85 at #4 Ohio Wesleyan 100
Friday, Feb. 25
at Wooster
#3 Wabash vs #2 Wittenberg, 6pm
#4 Ohio Wesleyan vs #1 Wooster, 8pm
Saturday, Feb. 26
7:00 at Wooster
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
First Round - Wednesday, February 23
#8 Alma 77 at #1 Hope 110
#7 Trine 65 at #2 Calvin 72
#6 Kalamazoo 66 at #3 Albion 76 2OT
#5 Adrian 67 at #4 Olivet 64 2OT
Semifinals - Friday, February 25 at Hope College, Holland, MI
#3 Albion vs #2 Calvin 6 p.m.
#5 Adrian at #1 Hope 8:15 p.m.
Championship - Saturday, February 26
At Hope College, 7:30 p.m.
Ohio Athletic Conference
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011
Game 1: #8 Wilmington 73 at #1 Marietta College 84
Game 2: #7 Mount Union 68 at #2 John Carroll 75
Game 3: #6 Otterbein 47 at #3 Capital 76
Game 4: #5 Heidelberg 80 at #4 Ohio Northern 77 2OT
OAC Semifinals: Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 • All Game Times TBA
Game 5: #5 Heidelberg 55 at #1 Marietta 70
Game 6: #3 Capital 74 at #2 John Carroll 81
OAC Finals: Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011 • 7:30 p.m.
#2 John Carroll at #1 Marietta
Presidents Athletic Conference
First Round - Tuesday, February 22, 2011
#8 Waynesburg 53 at #1 Thiel 73
#5 Thomas More 58 at #4 W&J 57
#7 Grove City 54 at #2 Saint Vincent 72
#6 Westminster 58 at #3 Bethany 90
Semifinals - Thursday, February 24, 2011
#5 Thomas More 65 at #1 Thiel 78
#3 Bethany 66 at #2 Saint Vencent 65
Finals - Saturday, February 26, 2011
#3 Bethany at #1 Thiel- 7:30 p.m.
AMCC
First Round - Tuesday, Feb. 22 - 7p
#5 Mount Aloysius 60 at #4 Hilbert 102
#6 Pitt-Bradford 85 at #3 Medaille 97
Semifinals - Friday, Feb. 25
Hosted by La Roche
1p: #4 Hilbert vs. #1 La Roche
3p: #3 Medaile vs #2 PSU-Behrend
(fixed a score typo, no biggie...dc)
Question for those who are crunching the numbers. What are the odds that anyone in the GL region passes by Wooster in the eyes of the committee (for potential hosting purposes) if the Scots lose to Wittenberg tonight, and who between Marietta, Penn St. Behrend and Hope has the best chance to do so?
Quote from: seinfeld on February 26, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Question for those who are crunching the numbers. What are the odds that anyone in the GL region passes by Wooster in the eyes of the committee (for potential hosting purposes) if the Scots lose to Wittenberg tonight, and who between Marietta, Penn St. Behrend and Hope has the best chance to do so?
So much of it depends on how that NCAA configures the bracket. There is no guarantee that Hope would actually play in a a "Great Lakes" pod and PSU-B may be swept eastward. It just depends on how the pods take shape nationally.
This may be a good time to point out that the NCAA has historically not had any issues sending Calvin and Hope into a "Midwest" pod despite the rigid insistence that such games are not regional games in the regular season. I understand the standards are different for bracketing but, to me, this is one more example of why the regional model is broken for Calvin and Hope.
Quote from: ziggy on February 26, 2011, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: seinfeld on February 26, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Question for those who are crunching the numbers. What are the odds that anyone in the GL region passes by Wooster in the eyes of the committee (for potential hosting purposes) if the Scots lose to Wittenberg tonight, and who between Marietta, Penn St. Behrend and Hope has the best chance to do so?
So much of it depends on how that NCAA configures the bracket. There is no guarantee that Hope would actually play in a a "Great Lakes" pod and PSU-B may be swept eastward. It just depends on how the pods take shape nationally.
This may be a good time to point out that the NCAA has historically not had any issues sending Calvin and Hope into a "Midwest" pod despite the rigid insistence that such games are not regional games in the regular season. I understand the standards are different for bracketing but, to me, this is one more example of why the regional model is broken for Calvin and Hope.
Women have hosting priority on the first weekend this year, so Hope's men will likely be on the road regardless of how the final regional rankings stack up (because Hope's women will probably host).
Ziggy - I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: monsoon on February 26, 2011, 01:10:20 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 26, 2011, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: seinfeld on February 26, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Question for those who are crunching the numbers. What are the odds that anyone in the GL region passes by Wooster in the eyes of the committee (for potential hosting purposes) if the Scots lose to Wittenberg tonight, and who between Marietta, Penn St. Behrend and Hope has the best chance to do so?
So much of it depends on how that NCAA configures the bracket. There is no guarantee that Hope would actually play in a a "Great Lakes" pod and PSU-B may be swept eastward. It just depends on how the pods take shape nationally.
This may be a good time to point out that the NCAA has historically not had any issues sending Calvin and Hope into a "Midwest" pod despite the rigid insistence that such games are not regional games in the regular season. I understand the standards are different for bracketing but, to me, this is one more example of why the regional model is broken for Calvin and Hope.
Women have hosting priority on the first weekend this year, so Hope's men will likely be on the road regardless of how the final regional rankings stack up (because Hope's women will probably host).
Ziggy - I couldn't agree more.
Unless the Calvin women beat them today. Then I could see Calvin getting the host on the Women's side.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2011, 01:11:30 PM
Unless the Calvin women beat them today. Then I could see Calvin getting the host on the Women's side.
The women's bracket usually does a better job of moving teams around; I expect Hope and Calvin to be in different "pods" the first weekend regardless of who wins this afternoon so they could both host. But your right; the loser probably hits the road.
If it was the men's bracket, they'd almost certainly be lumped together in the same "pod" (i.e. @ Aurora a few years ago).
Should Benedictine win the Nathcon tonight, I think they would be a prime candidate to host based on their central location in Chicago. Not sure about their record and other credentials.
You could easily place an Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin school there without much trouble.
Potentially bad news for GL region Pool C hopefuls...
At the half:
John Carroll 49
Marietta 28
69-69 all, Marietta has come back from over 20 down to tie JCU with 6:30 to go.
Live feed: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/marietta-college-athletics
83-82 JCU with 1:19 left. Marietta ball.
85-83 Marietta after a 3 by Worstell.
85-85 JCU answers with a driving bucket. 36.5 left, Marietta ball with a full shot clock.
Timeout Marietta. They'll basically be able to hold for a shot to win. Marietta beat JCU on a buzzer-beater about a week ago.
Inbounds....Marietta killing time...
Halter drains a jumper, nearly a 3 but he wasn't quite over the line.
87-85 Marietta, 2.7 seconds left. JCU to inbound under the Marietta hoop.
EDIT: Officials confer and they credit it as a three. 88-85 Marietta. Also revised the time to 4.1 seconds.
JCU inbounds to half court and calls time. 3.4 seconds left.
The JCU three goes wanting at the buzzer.
Congratulations to the Marietta Pioneers on its first-ever OAC Tournament Title and the tremendous comeback!
I've seen worse games.
It is definitely worth pointing out that Bethany beat Thiel tonight. I'm guessing Thiel, although I don't think they are better than either Witt or Wabash, is probably going to get a bid over them.
Penn St. Erie, the Behrend College also lost tonight. Gotta be happy for LaRoche. What a season they've had.
So with both Thiel and PSU-B not getting the A-bids from the GL Region, does that put both Wabash and Witt on the outside looking in? Thiel was already ahead of Wabash in the last GL Regional poll and Wabash hurt themselves losing in the semis while Thiel made it to the PrAC finals. And as for Witt, I wonder how much ground they had to make up after losing their last 2 games of the regular season. Just making it to the NCAC finals might not have been enough to make up the ground they lost.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 27, 2011, 08:30:08 AM
So with both Thiel and PSU-B not getting the A-bids from the GL Region, does that put both Wabash and Witt on the outside looking in? Thiel was already ahead of Wabash in the last GL Regional poll and Wabash hurt themselves losing in the semis while Thiel made it to the PrAC finals. And as for Witt, I wonder how much ground they had to make up after losing their last 2 games of the regular season. Just making it to the NCAC finals might not have been enough to make up the ground they lost.
I think Wabash is out, not very many Pool C's have ever lost in their conference semi-finals and still received a bid.
At least when it comes to SOS, I think Thiel's loss to Bethany was worse than Witt losing to Wooster. I would think Witt moved ahead of Thiel with their NCAC tournament performance.
The GL committee seems pretty set in their belief PSU-Behrend is worthy of being considered for a Pool C bid based on their ranking last week. They will probably only drop behind Hope.
The trouble for Witt is going to be they will likely be behind PSU-B and their very week SOS/RPI it could be awhile before PSU-B is taken off the Pool C table meaning Witt will probably be near the last group of teams to be looked at.
I think Witt's in.
I'm just beginning my final projections, and with 2 upset possibilities remaining, they appear to be safe.
Wabash looks to be out.
Pre-Season polls around the Great Lakes Region
MIAA
1. Hope
2. Calvin
3. Adrian
4. Albion
NCAC
1. Wooster
2. Wittenberg
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Wabash
OAC
1. Marietta
2. John Carroll
3. Otterbein
4. Capital
Presidents Athletic
unavailable
usual suspects Bethany, Thiel, St. Vincent, Geneva
AMCC
2. Penn State-Behrend
Quote from: sac on November 08, 2011, 04:10:29 PM
Pre-Season polls around the Great Lakes Region
OAC
1. Marietta
2. John Carroll
3. Otterbein
4. Capital
It will be interesting to see how the OAC plays out with Trevor Halter reportedly out of action for 3 - 7 weeks with back surgery. Fortunately for Marietta they don't play JCU until January so hopefully Halter should be back in action well before then.
Non-conference match-ups of the above teams
Nov 18 Capital vs Thiel at Westminster
Nov 19 Otterbein at Thiel at Westminster
Nov 22 Capital at Wittenberg
Nov 22 Penn State-Behrend at Thiel
Nov 29 Wittenberg at Marietta
Dec 3. Wooster at Adrian
Dec 10 Marietta at Otterbein
Dec 22. Otterbein at Wittenberg
Dec 28 Ohio Wesleyan vs Albion at Otterbein
Dec 29 Marietta at Hope
Dec 29 Ohio Wesleayn/Albion at Otterbein
Dec 29 Thiel at Wooster
Jan 2. Capital at Ohio Wesleyan
Jan 4. Geneva at Wooster
Couple scores of regional interest.
Capital 76 Thiel 56
Centre, Ky 92 John Carroll 91 OT
Wittenberg 69 Capital 63
Thiel 65 PSU-Behrend 47
Never quite know what we'll get from the PAC and our AMCC orphans, but this is a key in-region win for Thiel. Behrend has usually ended up with pretty gaudy in-region records however this year's version of the Lions are 0-4.
Quote from: sac on November 23, 2011, 03:41:57 PM
Thiel 65 PSU-Behrend 47
Never quite know what we'll get from the PAC and our AMCC orphans, but this is a key in-region win for Thiel. Behrend has usually ended up with pretty gaudy in-region records however this year's version of the Lions are 0-4.
It's a bad year to be Penn State, regardless of which particular campus of the institution you happen to represent.
Marietta 87 Wittenberg 63
Pretty convincing score. Later down the road this score will be useful to Marietta's various rankings.
Maybe. Are we sure Wittenberg won't have another stumblebum season like they did a few years ago?
Quote from: smedindy on November 30, 2011, 05:41:15 PM
Maybe. Are we sure Wittenberg won't have another stumblebum season like they did a few years ago?
True, but at the minimum its an in-region win and those never hurt. Especially considering Marietta is short one all-american forward. It would be a shame to rack up losses without your best player and have it cost you seeding in the tournament or getting in the tournament at all.
Baldwin-Wallace 93 Marietta 74
It was really never close, http://www.bw.edu/athletics/mbb/sched/11game05.htm BW has a pretty young team with only 1 senior and 4 juniors. Pretty decent height as well. BW was only 9-16 a year ago but are off to a 5-1 start this year, their loss a curious loss to Bethany (6-0)
Wooster 75 Adrian 50
Lucky for Marietta that Muskingum is next up. Then to Otterbein, where they will get a beatin if they don't guard the paint. Ithaca played a continuous 2-3 zone against the Cards and clogged the paint.
Wittenberg 56 Wooster 55......basket at the buzzer, just how good rivalries should end. http://www.woosterathletics.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/boxscores/20111207_4gba.xml
Takes a little thunder out of this Saturday's Wooster at unbeaten Wabash game, it now almost becomes a must win for Wooster so early in the NCAC season.
Wabash 72 Wooster 58 -- Wabash looked the better team the whole time I was watching. Maybe not a top 10 team but a very good D3 team. Wooster has some work to do to win another NCAC title and they'll need some help now.
Marietta 77 Otterbein 69 http://otterbeincardinals.com/custompages/Mbasketball/games/2012/game7.htm
Otterbein was picked among the top 4 in the OAC, but right now they are 3-4 and have some tough games coming. Not sure the Cardinals are going to live up to their pre-season billing or at least their non-conference record not reflect it.
Albion tries to mount a furious comeback against Ohio Wesleyan. The Brits were down by 19 with 8:34 to play, but now cut that to single digits with 2:48 left. Looks like it will be too little too late though.
Albion could never get it closer than 8, and in the end OWU took the game 78-66.
A couple pretty big regional games on this first day of conference play in the new year.
OAC
Baldwin-Wallace 8-3 at John Carroll 8-2
Both teams are tied in the loss column for the OAC lead with Wilmington and Ohio Northern. JCU has 2 in-region losses, despite a great start BW has racked up 3 in-region losses already. A win for JCU could set up a game for 1st place with Wilmington on Saturday.
NCAC
Wittenberg 8-3 at Maryville, TN 8-5
A rare in-region game for a great lakes team vs the Maryville Scots, Witt has 2 in-region losses with 7 games remaining against Hiram, OWU, Wabash and Wooster. Witt needs this win if they hope to be in contention for pool C status.
MIAA
Calvin 5-6 at Adrian 7-3
Not much of a big time, prime time match-up but probably the most important game in the MIAA on the first night. Calvin is 1-1 in-region, Adrian 1-1. Adrian gets Hope on the road Saturday so this a big week for the Bulldogs, it will dictate how their season will play out a lot.
Presidents Ath.
Thomas More 8-4 at Thiel 7-4
For conference purposes, Thomas More is a game back of Thiel and Bethany. Thiel has 3 in-region losses, Thomas More has 2.
We're still a month away from the first set of real rankings, but with non-con play mostly over I thought this would be fun to look at. As it stands right now, my "computer" spits out the Great Lakes Region like this:
1. Hope
2. Wabash
3. Bethany
4. Ohio Wesleyan
5. Wooster
6. Marietta
----------
7. Wittenberg
8. John Carroll
9. Baldwin-Wallace
(a big jump)
10. Thomas More
11. Thiel
Hope only has two regional games in the books, but they could both be wins versus regionally ranked opponents, depending on how things fall out. Wheaton and Marietta both look to have a good chance of being ranked at some point. With the relative few number of games played, Hope has a smaller margin for error.
Wabash looks solid for #2 right now. Their 8-1 regional record doesn't look quite as good as Bethany's 10-0 mark, but their only loss is to Transylvania, who looks solid for the #1 spot in the Midwest at the moment. The LG's hold a win over probably ranked Wooster, and potentially ranked (down the road) Baldwin-Wallace. Their SOS of .639 likely would hold them above Bethany's .512 at the moment.
Bethany's best win was probably against Baldwin-Wallace. Their only loss was an out-of-region road loss to Illinois Weslyean (by three, not a bad loss). They'll likely be held down by a lower SOS (not bad at the moment, but they play in the PrAC), so they'll need to stay relatively blemish free to stay amongst the top three, I think.
I think there's a bit of a gap between Bethany and OWU at the moment. Their SOS's are similar, but Ohio Wesleyan has the opening night loss at Hanover to contend with. The Bishops beat Washington U., who has a really good shot at being ranked in the MW region, but it's an out-of-region game, so that will hardly help them. The teeth of their schedule is still ahead of them with 6 future meetings with the NCAC's W's.
I have Wooster next. The Scots have played a fairly tough schedule, but have lost their two most difficult games (at Wabash and vs. Wittenberg). I don't think the single head-to-head loss to Wittenberg would be enough to allow the Tigers to jump the Scots in the rankings. Perhaps it is, and if so, Wooster could find themselves "falling" all the way to 7th.
Marietta and Wittenberg are very very similar according to my numbers, but the Pioneers won head to had, and so that will keep them above Witt for a while. Similar to what I said above, I don't think the common opponent results with Wooster (Marietta beat Wittenberg, Wooster lost to Witt) is enough to jump up to #5, but then again, who am I to know how the committee weighs such things.
Highlighted games
Adrian 68 Calvin 61
John Carroll 89 Baldwin-Wallace 85
Wittenberg 77 Maryville 70
Thiel 66 Thomas More 64
If anyone wants to decipher the technicals at the end of the Thiel/Thomas More game be my guest. Looks like a crazy finish though. http://www.thielathletics.com/custompages/mbb/201112/HTML/thimbb12.htm
Thiel.edu: (http://www.thielathletics.com/news/2012/1/4/MBB_0104121947.aspx?path=mbball) Chace McKinney (Boardman, Ohio/Kennedy Catholic) connected on two free throws with 11 seconds to go to give Thiel a three-point lead, 64-61. Ryan Hamm hit 1-of-2 technical foul free throws with two seconds to play to pull the Saints back to within two, 64-62, but following a Thomas More personal foul and double technical fouls issued, Kamram McKaskill hit a pair of free throws to give the Tomcats a four-point advantage, 66-62, with two seconds remaining.
Thomas More refused comment, like it was the King's divorce or something.
Having seen Thiel twice, I can easily imagine that this game was very chippy down the stretch, especially since the personal foul mentioned was TMC's 17th of the second half. It doesn't seem to me that Thos. More got enough free throws out of the scrum, though. They didn't seem to get any from the double technical.
If things happen at the same time, the PBP can go out of order, plus the stat keeper may have had fun just trying to enter it all in. May have been some mouthy stuff going on, though you wonder if that was going on through the game and why the ref didn't stop it earlier. Five of TMC's 17 fouls happened in the last couple of minutes.
Saturday's highlighted games
OAC
John Carroll 9-2 at Wilmington 6-5 -- Wilmington isn't even one of the top 4 teams statistically in the OAC yet here they are with the winner of this game sitting in first place by their lonesome. Cinderella's and pumkins come to mind.
bonus game: BW plays at Capital, loser picks up a 3rd conference loss
NCAC
Friday:
Wabash 10-1 at Hiram 8-3 --- Hiram appears to be a really good offensive team, this will test Wabash's defense.
Saturday:
Wittenberg 9-3 at Ohio Wesleyan 11-1 -- On paper they look fairly evenly matched, winner has the potential to be in first by themselves.
MIAA
Adrian 8-3 at Hope 11-1 -- A little different Adrian team than they've played with thus far, this is most likely a game between the MIAA's two best. Should be a big crowd in Holland, with a playoff atmosphere.
PAC
There won't be many big games in this league, aside from Bethany v Thiel. Speaking of which, that game is next Wed night, so both of these teams will be looking for wins to set up next weeks game for the conference lead. Bethany hosts Waynesburg, Thiel hosts Geneva.
Efficiencies thru Wed games for the Great Lakes
OFFENSIVE EFF. Top 10
1. Hiram 113.90
2. Bethany 110.20
3. Wooster 110.05
4. Ohio Wes. 109.84
5. John Carroll 109.80
6. Wabash 109.40
7. Hope 108.21
8. Marietta 108.10
9. Wittenberg 107.63
10. Denison 107.40
Probably wise to note the number of NCAC schools here, it looks like a good offensive league this year.
DEFENSIVE EFF Top 10
1. St. Vincent 86.91
2. Bethany 87.01
3. Wooster 87.43
4. Bald-Wally 92.12
5. Wabash 92.13
6. Hope 92.48
7. PSU-Behrend 93.88
8. Ohio Wes. 94.94
9. Grove City 94.97
10. Thiel 95.59
I tend to think anything under 90 is very good and approaching elite status in D3. Those 4 PAC teams are curious, I think they are mostly there because the rest of the PAC looks pretty bad at scoring points. I'm willing to give credit to the NCAC for being a good offensive league, but I don't really think the PAC is a good defensive league, too many teams bad at scoring efficiently.
OVERALL Top 10
1. Bethany 223.19
2. Wooster 222.62
3. Wabash 217.27
4. St. Vincent 216.54
5. Hope 215.73
6. Ohio Wes. 214.91
7. Bald-Wally 212.51
8. John Carroll 211.75
9. Hiram 211.65
10. Thomas More 210.60
Probably not what people expected to see, I know it wasn't what I expected. First Bethany, its actually pretty hard to dismiss Bethany, they've got good results v BW and IWU and excellent numbers. Wooster... the Scots have 2 losses to what look like two good teams. They've efficiently hammered the teams they were supposed to, that Geneva game may have blown the numbers up some. Its just so odd because they have 2 conference losses already. Lastly St. Vincent, great defensive numbers and a decent 9-4 record but I think they may have played close to the weakest schedule in the region, strength of schedule adjustment would push them out.
A note on Marietta and Hope, both played significantly better MAC opponents, so their numbers are being affected negatively by about 2 points on off. and def. If you want to adjust to reflect results vs 'like' competition Hope is about 219, Marietta 209. That result will calm down as the year progresses, but for now its probably clouding their true performance level a bit.
Strength of Schedule adjustment
I might adjust the top 5 to look like this
1. Wooster
2. Wabash
3. Hope
4. Bethany
5. Ohio Wesleyan
6.....a bunch of teams really pretty even
It will be interesting to see what happens to Wooster and their 'numbers' as the year rolls on, its a pretty odd circumstance. They have played an overall strong schedule.
The bottom 5 teams
Waynesburg 183.95
Geneva 183.74
Westminster 183.72
Olivet 182.86
Franciscan 161.40
Note the lack of NCAC teams (Allegheny would be next if I listed 6). I am pretty convinced Franciscan might be the lowest rated team in D3.
Where do those ratings and measures come from? Did I miss a memo? ;)
Hope's SOS is rated #2 overall in D-3 by Massey. Wabash is #27 and Wooster #36. Marietta is listed as #13 in SOS. St. Vincent is #385!
Franciscan is dead last in rating by Massey (#412) and their SOS is near the last (#406). That's REALLY hard to do...
Quote from: smedindy on January 06, 2012, 05:23:50 PM
Where do those ratings and measures come from? Did I miss a memo? ;)
Hope's SOS is rated #2 overall in D-3 by Massey. Wabash is #27 and Wooster #36. Marietta is listed as #13 in SOS. St. Vincent is #385!
Franciscan is dead last in rating by Massey (#412) and their SOS is near the last (#406). That's REALLY hard to do...
Just my own efficiency calculations. Well not my own, its someone else's formula, but I do the grunt work I guess.
Highlighted results
John Carroll 82 Wilmington 64......JCU now alone in first in the OAC.
bonus: Capital 75 BW 69.......BW now with 3 league losses
Wittenberg 57 Ohio Wes. 55........Witt now with wins over Wooster and OWU
Hope 69 Adrian 60......wasn't pretty but effective.
Both Thiel and Bethany took care of bidnezz and won handily, setting up next Wed. nights game for the PAC lead at Bethany.
Quote from: sac on January 07, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
Wittenberg 57 Ohio Wes. 55........Witt now with wins over Wooster and OWU
...both on the road, no less.
This week's big regional games
NCAC
DePauw 8-5, 2-2 at Wabash 12-1, 4-0
or
Hiram 9-4, 2-2 at Wooster 11-2, 2-2
No big head to head games but DePauw/Wabash is always big for these two schools. For standings purposes Hiram at Wooster is probably the 'bigger' game as both schools have 2 conference losses. A third this early would certainly but their backs up against the wall.
OAC
Marietta 9-4, 4-2 at Capital 7-6, 4-2
Loser of this one falls 2 back in the loss column, this race feels like it could come right down to the last couple weekends but JCU is playing the best right now.
MIAA
Albion 6-7, 2-0 at Hope 12-1, 2-0
Winner walks away in at least a share of 1st place, Albion literally stole this game away from Hope in the final minute in Holland a year ago.
Adrian 8-4, 1-1 at Trine 9-4, 2-0
If I had more money and time I'd seriously consider driving to see this game. Both teams should be strong contenders to make the MIAA tournament at least. It's almost a must win for Adrian.
PAC
Thiel 9-4, 6-0 at Bethany 13-1, 5-0
Obviously one of the two biggest games of the year to be played in the PAC, Bethany gets first crack at home. Bethany is right on the edge of being a top 25 team.
Wed. scores
OAC
quite an upsetting night in the OAC, I'm posting all 5 scores just because
Capital 82 Marietta 66
Muskingum 82 John Carroll 69
Mt. Union 49 Bald-Wally 47
Ohio No. 64 Wilmington 60
Heidelberg 76 Otterbein 60
Three teams lower in the standings won tonight, Capital/Marietta and H'berg/Otterbein entered the night tied.
This puts JCU and Capital in a tie for 1st, with Wilmington, Marietta, Ohio Northern a game back in the loss column.
NCAC
A couple upsets in the NCAC, this puts Wittenberg in 1st for the time being.
DePauw 64 Wabash 55
Denison 69 Ohio Wesleyan 66
Wooster 92 Hiram 64
Witt 71 Kenyon 63.....Witt alone at the top
MIAA
Nothing really life changing
Adrian 53 Trine 42
Hope 78 Albion 61
PAC
Thiel 69 Bethany 57
Bethany fell behind 19-5 in the first 10 minutes and just never recovered. Thiel takes over first in the PAC.
Some strange results in the Region tonight....very hard to believe that a 5-9 Musky squad knocked off 10-2 John Carroll by 13 points? ??? Also surprised by the size of the margin in the Capital - Marietta game. John Carroll hosts Marietta this Saturday so either JCU gets their 3rd OAC loss or Marietta will get their 4th?
The Thiel - Bethany result is also surprising given that Bethany was playing at home. Bethany appeared to be a decent team because they lost by only 3 points in a game AT Illinois Wesleyan in late December. Perhaps, Bethany had a cold shooting night but a 12 point loss at home doesn't look good.
Thiel is an average team in the GL Region as evidenced by their 3 double digit losses to Capital, Wooster and Hiram earlier this season. So once again, the PRAC looks quite weak with Thiel as their leader with a 7-0 conference record.
Quote from: wooscotsfan on January 11, 2012, 10:39:44 PM
Some strange results in the Region tonight....very hard to believe that a 5-9 Musky squad knocked off 10-2 John Carroll by 13 points? ??? Also surprised by the size of the margin in the Capital - Marietta game. John Carroll hosts Marietta this Saturday so either JCU gets their 3rd OAC loss or Marietta will get their 4th?
The Thiel - Bethany result is also surprising given that Bethany was playing at home. Bethany appeared to be a decent team because they lost by only 3 points in a game AT Illinois Wesleyan in late December. Perhaps, Bethany had a cold shooting night but a 12 point loss at home doesn't look good.
Thiel is an average team in the GL Region as evidenced by their 3 double digit losses to Capital, Wooster and Hiram earlier this season. So once again, the PRAC looks quite weak with Thiel as their leader with a 7-0 conference record.
Not that this changes your arguement but the Bethany-IWU game was on a neutral court (@ College of Staten Island).
Quote from: augie_superfan on January 11, 2012, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on January 11, 2012, 10:39:44 PM
Some strange results in the Region tonight....very hard to believe that a 5-9 Musky squad knocked off 10-2 John Carroll by 13 points? ??? Also surprised by the size of the margin in the Capital - Marietta game. John Carroll hosts Marietta this Saturday so either JCU gets their 3rd OAC loss or Marietta will get their 4th?
The Thiel - Bethany result is also surprising given that Bethany was playing at home. Bethany appeared to be a decent team because they lost by only 3 points in a game AT Illinois Wesleyan in late December. Perhaps, Bethany had a cold shooting night but a 12 point loss at home doesn't look good.
Thiel is an average team in the GL Region as evidenced by their 3 double digit losses to Capital, Wooster and Hiram earlier this season. So once again, the PRAC looks quite weak with Thiel as their leader with a 7-0 conference record.
Not that this changes your arguement but the Bethany-IWU game was on a neutral court (@ College of Staten Island).
Thanks for the catch on the neutral court game. I still stand by my point that the PRAC is weak.
Quote from: wooscotsfan on January 12, 2012, 12:21:38 AM
I still stand by my point that the PRAC is weak.
Seconded... 8-)
Some of you folks live far closer to the PAC than I do and was wondering the proper pronunciation of Thiel.
Is it, Thiel like Theo or is is pronounced teal like the color. The thick Pennsylvania accented guy on the broadcast kept calling them the color.
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2012, 06:24:32 PM
Some of you folks live far closer to the PAC than I do and was wondering the proper pronunciation of Thiel.
Is it, Thiel like Theo or is is pronounced teal like the color. The thick Pennsylvania accented guy on the broadcast kept calling them the color.
I've always heard that it's pronounced like the color, 'teal'.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 12, 2012, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2012, 06:24:32 PM
Some of you folks live far closer to the PAC than I do and was wondering the proper pronunciation of Thiel.
Is it, Thiel like Theo or is is pronounced teal like the color. The thick Pennsylvania accented guy on the broadcast kept calling them the color.
I've always heard that it's pronounced like the color, 'teal'.
You have heard correctly! ;) :)
Teal it is!
OAC
Marietta 9-5, 4-3 at John Carroll 10-3, 5-2
This is almost a must win game for Marietta, a 4th conference loss would be tough to recover from. Plus it would be their 5 in-region loss. JCU is trying to bounce back from their Wednesday upset at the hands of lowly Muskingum.
NCAC
Wooster 12-2, 3-2 at DePauw 9-5, 3-2
This became a bigger game after DePauw's upset of Wabash. Otherwise it's probably just a tricky roadtrip for the Scots.
Denison 6-8, 3-2 at Wittenberg 11-3, 5-0
This became a bigger game after Denison's upset of Ohio Wesleyan. Otherwise it's probably just a tricky home game for the Tigers.
PAC
Thomas More 10-5, 5-2 at St. Vincent 10-4, 3-2
They have nice records, both are 2 games back in the PAC. So maybe an elimination game
MIAA
Trine 9-5, 2-1 at Albion 6-8, 2-1
Both teams coming off Wednesday losses. Trine still has to play Hope and Calvin twice, so this is a must win for the Thunder.
Scores
OAC
John Carroll 90 Marietta 80
The OAC is now looking like a JCU/Capital battle. Wilmington is only 1 back but I can't see them staying around. And of course a week from today JCU/Capital play each other.
NCAC
DePauw 76 Wooster 66 --- After a very quiet 2 months in their first year in the NCAC the Tigers have made their presence known with 2 big upsets in one week. Wooster now has 3 losses, their 7 year reign may be ending.
Witt 67 Denison 58 --- sets up the Wabash/Witt game for 1st place next week.
MIAA
Trine 70 Albion 54 --- Normally an impressive road win in this league, but I'm not sure about this Albion team.
PAC
St. Vincent 86 Thomas More 71 --- St. V gets Bethany on Wednesday.
Tonights regional games of importance.
OAC
I don't really have one single game to focus on, the OAC race is turning into its usual bloodbath. At least for a couple weeks while things shake out, every game is probably important to every team.
NCAC
Wabash 13-2, 5-1 @ Wittenberg 12-3, 6-0
I think its pretty obvious this is the game of the night in the region. The result is going to dictate how the NCAC plays out, and will have a big impact on future GL rankings.
PAC
St. Vincent 12-4, 5-2 @ Bethany 14-2, 6-1
St. V needs this one to stay in the PAC hunt. I still think this is going to be Bethany and Thiel all the way, this game will either prove or disprove that thought. Bethany will need every win it can get to stay in the hunt for an at large bid if they don't get the AQ.
MIAA
then there is this
Calvin @ Hope
Witt smacked Wabash clean out of Springfield, 61-43. Just a bad game for the LG's, and a great defensive performance from Witt. The Tigers now have a two-game lead in the NCAC.
Wednesday's scores
OAC--4 teams won, 4 teams lost and Wilmington beat Thomas More
NCAC
Wittenberg 61 Wabash 43
PAC
Bethany 77 St. Vincent 63
MIAA
Hope 81 Calvin 65
OAC
John Carroll 7-2
Capital 7-2
Wilmington 6-3
Bald-Wally 5-4
Marietta 5-4
John Carroll @ Capital -- winner takes the lead in the OAC
Bald-Wally @ Marietta -- this is pretty much an elimination game from the title race I would think, 3 back is a pretty big hill to climb.
NCAC
Wittenberg 7-0
Wabash 5-2
Ohio Wesleyan 5-2
DePauw 5-2
Wooster 4-3
Ohio Wesleyan @ Wooster -- must win survival game for Wooster
DePauw has Witt, Wesleyan and Wabash in its next 3 games after Saturday so the Tigers are going to figure in this prominently the next couple weeks.
Ohio Wesleyan is entering a season making or breaking 4 game stretch starting with Wooster. The next 3 are Wabash, DePauw and Wittenberg.
MIAA
Hope 5-0
Trine 4-1
Adrian 3-2
Albion 3-2
No direct games between the top 4 this weekend, but Trine is playing at Calvin Saturday and then host Hope next Wednesday. So its a really big week for the Thunder. Potentially the top half of the MIAA could match-up next Wed with Hope @ Trine, Albion @ Adrian
PAC
Thiel 8-0
Bethany 7-1
St.Vincent 5-3
Thomas More 5-3
This league is really down to Bethany and Thiel, they meet again Feb 11 at Thiel. Neither team should have much trouble reaching that game in the same position in the standings.
Witt has to travel to Hiram Saturday, and the Terriers can cause some issues with their style. It could be an Admiral Ackbar 'trap' game.
Quote from: smedindy on January 20, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Witt has to travel to Hiram Saturday, and the Terriers can cause some issues with their style. It could be an Admiral Ackbar 'trap' game.
So, may the "Force" be with the Terriers! ;) ;D
Quote from: wooscotsfan on January 21, 2012, 10:40:02 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 20, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Witt has to travel to Hiram Saturday, and the Terriers can cause some issues with their style. It could be an Admiral Ackbar 'trap' game.
So, may the "Force" be with the Terriers! ;) ;D
Final: Hiram 65 Wittenberg 51 Thanks to Admiral Ackbar and the Terriers! ;D
If someone from Central Ohio would take the time to explain the sudden outburst of good play from Capital it would be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: sac on January 22, 2012, 01:51:18 AM
If someone from Central Ohio would take the time to explain the sudden outburst of good play from Capital it would be greatly appreciated.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital.edu%2FuploadedImages%2FCapital%2FAthletics%2FVarsity_Sports%2FMens_Basketball%2FContent%2Fgoodwin_web.jpg&hash=c1b1d2ee05f298029e1591a8cd809ca348e4e429)
From the Columbus Dispatch earlier this week.
Tough love for Capital men
If they could have taken another exit out of Rickey Arena the night of Jan. 2 to avoid the public, the Capital men's basketball players surely would have taken it.
The Crusaders were rocked 76-55 at Ohio Wesleyan, and the final score didn't begin to tell the story.
"We were down by 30 points a couple of times," said Kelly Winter, a senior guard and captain from Dublin Scioto. "A couple of guys on the team from Lexington had about 80 people come down to watch us. We were embarrassed. Oh, man, it was horrible. No one said a word in the locker room. It was silent."
The next day, the players talked behind closed doors about what had to be done to turn around the season.
"We didn't yell," Winter said. "We said we had to stop playing so badly in the first halves of games. We'd be down by 15 points and have to spend the rest of the game playing catch-up. We had to be more physically and mentally prepared."
Everyone apparently was listening because Capital (9-6, 6-2) has won four straight games and is tied for first place with John Carroll in the Ohio Athletic Conference going into a game at Ohio Northern on Wednesday.
The Crusaders have just two seniors and two juniors and are not close in talent or experience to previous teams under coach Damon Goodwin.
Goodwin and his staff went back to basics after the loss at Ohio Wesleyan.
"We changed practice around where we really get after it — we're so much more intense," he said. "In the past, we talked a lot about what we had to do. These kids have responded by playing hard. It's not as if we're killing teams, but we have put ourselves into position to give ourselves a chance. Our guys are listening and following the game plan. More than anything, it has been effort."
Goodwin has told the players that they can't give up easy baskets and must keep unforced turnovers to a minimum because their margin of error is so slim.
"I'm not trying to sound like a hard guy, but the talking is over," Goodwin said. "Part of coaching is deciding what makes everything go. This team must battle for everything it gets."
OAC
Capital 8-2
John Carroll 7-3
Wilmington 6-4
Marietta 6-4
Bald-Wally 5-5
Ohio No. 5-5
Capital grabbed the OAC lead with a convincing 85-68 win over John Carroll. The Crusaders control their destiny completely as they do not not play JCU again. Capital has a pretty favorable schedule until back-to-back road trips to Bald-Wally and Marietta near the end of the season.
Wilmington slipped with an OT loss at Heidelberg. That was a big loss considering Wilmington hosts Capital on Wednesday.
For all of Marietta's issues, the Pioneers are right in the thick of things just two games back. Marietta needs help but it should be noted their final two games are hosting Capital and JCU. Could be an interesting finish.
Wed's game to watch:
Capital at Wilmington
NCAC
Wittenberg 7-1
Wabash 6-2
DePauw 6-2
Wooster 5-3
Ohio Wesleyan 5-3
Hiram's big win over Wittenberg makes the NCAC the race it probably should be, at least for now. With good parity at the top, it would have been shame to see someone run and hide at the top.
Wed games to watch:
Wabash at Ohio Wesleyan-- Game 2 of OWU's tough 4 game stretch against the top of the conference, its getting must win time for the Bishops. This game begins a 7 game stretch for Wabash where they play 5 vs the top of the conference.
DePauw at Wittenberg-- After a rough early December DePauw has won 7 of its last 8, this game begins a tough 3 game stretch against Witt, OWU, Wabash. Witt will be looking to rebound after Saturday's loss to Hiram.
MIAA
Hope 6-0
Adrian 4-2
Trine 4-2
Calvin 3-3
Albion 3-3
The MIAA crosses the midway line Wednesday night with Hope firmly in control of the title race at the moment. A win over Trine would put them 2 up, but the Dutchmen have their 4 toughest road games remaining.
Pivotal week for Adrian as they host Albion, travel to Calvin and host Hope in their next 3. After that stretch they'll either be in it or out of it. Trine's in the middle of their pivotal week and were handed an ugly 27 point loss at Calvin.
Wed games to watch:
Hope at Trine -- For Trine a win would put them a game back and open up the MIAA race, for Hope its a chance to put a little more distance between them and a challenger.
Albion at Adrian-- Important game for Adrian, they really need to win the next 2 for their home game with Hope to be meaningful. For Albion its now becoming about surviving and winning enough to make the MIAA tournament. Saturday's loss at home to Alma was damaging.
PAC
Thiel 9-0
Bethany 8-1
Really just counting down to the Bethany/Thiel game on Feb 11. Both teams should breeze through this week.
New poll, don't understand the Wooster leapfrog again, http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/week8
Wabash's loss to Witt looked bad, then Witt lost to Hiram. Wooster beat a good OWU team. It's really hard to discern any difference between many teams.
Quote from: smedindy on January 23, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
Wabash's loss to Witt looked bad, then Witt lost to Hiram. Wooster beat a good OWU team. It's really hard to discern any difference between many teams.
I understand the above statement, BUT.....Wooster has lost to Witt, DePauw and Wabash.....yet they rank in the poll above all three. Hiram beats DePauw and Witt, but not Wabash. Wabash loses to Witt and DePauw. I would think that both of those teams are worthy of consideration above Wabash and Wooster...Granted Wabash had a bad game at Witt, and Witt had a bad game at Hiram....Wabash beats Wooster by 14..DePauw beats Wooster by 9..a week removed..really don't get this one at all. Seems more about the program and history than the team.....parity, yes...serious question, does NCAA look at this poll at all? Even politically at the end of the year? I think the answer is no, but just asking.
Quote from: Wabash2011 on January 23, 2012, 09:02:18 PMserious question, does NCAA look at this poll at all? Even politically at the end of the year? I think the answer is no, but just asking.
No, the NCAA (i.e., the regional and national committees) do not take the D3hoops.com poll into account when compiling regional rankings and selecting and bracketing the tournament.
OAC
Capital 8-3
John Carroll 8-3
Wilmington 7-4
Marietta 7-4
Bald-Wally 6-5
Never a dull moment in the OAC it seems, within a coupe days of grabbing the outright OAC lead Capital falls to Wilmington thus creating the above conference race.
There will be a lot of top of the standings vs bottom of the standings games in the next couple weeks. That's kind of good because it looks like this one will come right down to the final weekend. Also kind of good because with the leagues track record there will likely be a couple head scratching upsets.
Wilmington is the focus of the next week as they complete a tough stretch of games with Capital, Bald-Wally and Marietta. I figured the Quakers would have faded by now, and if they don't this week they probably won't.
Sat. Game to watch
Wilmington at Baldwin-Wallace: all kinds of implications from conference race to tournament seedings. Wilmington won the first game by 3 at home, way back in early December.
NCAC
Wittenberg 8-1
Wabash 6-3
DePauw 6-3
Wooster 6-3
Ohio Wesleyan 6-3
Wittenberg was the big winner Wednesday night not only defeating DePauw in a close one but also regaining a 2 game lead after dropping this past Saturday's game at Hiram. Witt has OWU to thank for that as the Bishops kept themselves in the race by beating Wabash, thus helping to create the 6-3 logjam.
Witt still has to play all 4 of the 6-3 teams plus Hiram, so this it would seem is far from over.
Sat. game to watch
DePauw at Ohio Wesleyan: The implications are kind of obvious. This is game 3 of OWU's tough 4 game stretch. This is game 2 of DePauw's tough 3 game stretch.
bonus: might want to keep an eye on the Wooster at Hiram game, just in case the Terriers are feeling frisky this weekend.
MIAA
Hope 7-0
Adrian 5-2
Trine 4-3
Calvin 4-3
Trine took the hardest losses of the last 7 days being crushed by both Calvin and Hope. Again, Hope still has all 3 of its toughest road games to play. Big week for Adrian.
Sat game to watch
Adrian at Calvin: Loser of this one probably sees its chances of winning a piece of the MIAA go to near 0%, certainly a must win for Calvin and with Hope going to Adrian next Wed. you can probably say the same for Adrian.
bonus, bonus: Calvin is fresh off two offensive beat-downs of Trine and Olivet, Adrian is fresh off a defensive beat-down of Albion.
PAC
Thiel 10-0
Bethany 9-1
Still counting down the Bethany/Thiel game on Feb 11. Thiel hosts Westminster and Bethany is not playing this weekend.
UAA/AMCC
None of our UAA/AMCC Great Lakes teams will factor in their conference races or NCAA tournament unless they win their tournament.
But, Carnegie Mellon and Case Western will be playing New York Univ. twice each in the next 10 days. NYU is currently tied for the UAA lead with Emory and Washington.
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2012, 10:47:31 AM
bonus, bonus: Calvin is fresh off two offensive beat-downs of Trine and Olivet, Adrian is fresh off a defensive beat-down of Albion.
Calvin's defensive beat-down of Trine was just as (if not more) impressive than what Adrian did to Albion. Better Defensive efficiency rating for Calvin over Trine, and the Thunder have an actual offense most nights (which Albion does not).
Well from an efficiency point of view Calvin had its two best games in quite some time by a large margin.
In the modern game of basketball being down 35-5 with 3:00 to play in a half is pretty much a beat-down on any level even if you are bad at scoring. I would think most of the time you can accidentally score more points than 5 in 17 minutes of action.
Most Tiger fans know how are hard 35-5 can be. :)
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2012, 04:43:33 PM
Well from an efficiency point of view Calvin had its two best games in quite some time by a large margin.
In the modern game of basketball being down 35-5 with 3:00 to play in a half is pretty much a beat-down on any level even if you are bad at scoring. I would think most of the time you can accidentally score more points than 5 in 17 minutes of action.
Most Tiger fans know how are hard 35-5 can be. :)
Or how great it is if you are the 35! ;D (An entire 4 months of 'no worries'!)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2012, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2012, 04:43:33 PM
Well from an efficiency point of view Calvin had its two best games in quite some time by a large margin.
In the modern game of basketball being down 35-5 with 3:00 to play in a half is pretty much a beat-down on any level even if you are bad at scoring. I would think most of the time you can accidentally score more points than 5 in 17 minutes of action.
Most Tiger fans know how are hard 35-5 can be. :)
Or how great it is if you are the 35! ;D (An entire 4 months of 'no worries'!)
I was born on the day of one of the 5. :'(
^ And been 'cursed' ever since?! :P ;D
I was at the Frog Island Jazz Festival (Ypsilanti) on the day of IIRC the 28th of the 35 - the jazz shut down for a moment when someone in the audience announced the score because the band couldn't be heard over the cheering! ;D (We needed a break anyway - it was 104 degrees that day!)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2012, 07:21:14 PM
^ And been 'cursed' ever since?! :P ;D
I was at the Frog Island Jazz Festival (Ypsilanti) on the day of IIRC the 28th of the 35 - the jazz shut down for a moment when someone in the audience announced the score because the band couldn't be heard over the cheering! ;D (We needed a break anyway - it was 104 degrees that day!)
104 in May? my eyebrow cocketh in your direction ???
Quote from: sac on January 27, 2012, 08:03:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2012, 07:21:14 PM
^ And been 'cursed' ever since?! :P ;D
I was at the Frog Island Jazz Festival (Ypsilanti) on the day of IIRC the 28th of the 35 - the jazz shut down for a moment when someone in the audience announced the score because the band couldn't be heard over the cheering! ;D (We needed a break anyway - it was 104 degrees that day!)
104 in May? my eyebrow cocketh in your direction ???
Problems of an aging memory? The Jazz Festival was always mid-to-late June, which unless there were a lot of rain-outs, should take it past the 35-5 start. I guess it may have just been giddiness over their position - perhaps it was their 38th rather than 28th win?! (I'm not even sure about the heat - the 104 degree Jazz Festival might have been 1988, when we had something like 9 days over 100 and 36 or so over 90. But it WAS hot and the cheers drowned out the band - that much I'm confident of! :P)
Important Great Lakes games Wed night include.
Hope @ Adrian
OWU @ Witt
Wabash @ DePauw
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Important Great Lakes games Wed night include.
Hope @ Adrian
OWU @ Witt
Wabash @ DePauw
I'm definitely pulling for the Bishops and I'll probably be pulling for Wabash to give DePauw their 5th conference loss seeing as how Wabash is coming to Wooster this weekend to give the Scots a chance to avenge their loss back in December to Wabash in C'ville.
Also, don't overlook Wooster @ Denison. Outside of a head scratching home loss to Allegheny, the Big Red have been playing some pretty good basketball of late beating OWU at home and almost knocking off DePauw at home and giving Witt a pretty good game down in Springfield. Oh, and they just beat Wabash in C'ville as well. Wooster definitely can't go into tonight's game looking ahead to Saturday's showdown with Wabash.
The NCAC race could become VERY crazy tonight with an OWU win. A Wittenberg win would almost surely give the Tigers a minimum of a share of the regular season championship. DePauw or Wabash will be eliminated from title contention tonight.
Quote from: WAlum on February 01, 2012, 02:48:32 PM
The NCAC race could become VERY crazy tonight with an OWU win. A Wittenberg win would almost surely give the Tigers a minimum of a share of the regular season championship. DePauw or Wabash will be eliminated from title contention tonight.
Wittenberg won tonight and so did Wooster which keeps the Scots two games back with 5 games to play. As the cliche goes, "it is not over until the fat lady sings." ;)
Wittenberg has 3 tough games remaining so anything can still happen. Witt still plays AT Wabash, AT DePauw and hosts Wooster with none of those 3 games a sure victory. So in a worst case scenario for the Tigers, Witt could still finish with 4 losses and if Wooster ran the table (a very tall task since they have road games left at OWU and at Witt), Wooster would defend their NCAC title. The next 2+ weeks should be interesting in the NCAC title race. :)
Final:
Hope 64
Adrian 47
Bethany and Thiel both lost last night in PrAC play.
What teams might get at large bids from the Great Lakes Region if they don't win their league tourney. (as of today)
NCAC - Witt and Wooster, maybe Wabash or OWU
MIAA - Hope
OAC - John Carroll and Marietta
PRAC - None
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 10:45:53 AM
What teams might get at large bids from the Great Lakes Region if they don't win their league tourney. (as of today)
NCAC - Witt and Wooster, maybe Wabash or OWU
MIAA - Hope
OAC - John Carroll and Marietta
PRAC - None
Way too much OAC love there. Bethany would be bubble, neither JCU nor Marietta would be in. Not even close really.
John Carroll is 15-4. I know their strength of schedule isnt the best but they could win out basically and put themselves in a good position. Are you thinking the OAC is a one bid league? Bethanys SOS is horrendus.
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
John Carroll is 15-4. I know their strength of schedule isnt the best but they could win out basically and put themselves in a good position. Are you thinking the OAC is a one bid league? Bethanys SOS is horrendus.
Can't really count their wins versus non-D3. It's in-region D3 games that really carry the weight, so from the committee's perspective, they're 13-4.
OAC is almost certainly a one bid league. Bethany does have a horrid SOS, but John Carroll's right now is a less than stellar 0.482. It's not impossible that JCU gets in the conversation, but there's a long line of teams with similar winning percentages and similar-to-better SOS.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2012, 11:40:02 AM
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
John Carroll is 15-4. I know their strength of schedule isnt the best but they could win out basically and put themselves in a good position. Are you thinking the OAC is a one bid league? Bethanys SOS is horrendus.
Can't really count their wins versus non-D3. It's in-region D3 games that really carry the weight, so from the committee's perspective, they're 13-4.
OAC is almost certainly a one bid league. Bethany does have a horrid SOS, but John Carroll's right now is a less than stellar 0.482. It's not impossible that JCU gets in the conversation, but there's a long line of teams with similar winning percentages and similar-to-better SOS.
I agree with KS. The OAC is down this year. JCU might be the only team I would say has a shot (albeit small) of garnering a Pool C bid and for them to do that, I would say they would HAVE to win out in the regular season at the very least. I don't think Marietta has a strong enough resume to put them in the conversation for a C. IMO, right now, the only conference that is deserving of multiple bids in the GL Region is the NCAC.
I'm actually expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids. However there is the possibility they cannabalize themselves out of that 3rd bid.
.700 winning percentage in in-region games seems to be at or near the annual cut-off for the at-large births. While I'm not high on the OAC getting a 2nd bid either, there is that possibility if someone finishes on a strong run and loses in the OAC tournament championship. The problem for the OAC team, whoever it is, is going to be strength of schedule and other metrics. They just won't look very good.
I was meaning to go through and list the in-region records like I have in the past but a major computer blowup has delayed that. :-[
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 02:30:24 PM
I'm actually expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids. However there is the possibility they cannabalize themselves out of that 3rd bid.
.700 winning percentage in in-region games seems to be at or near the annual cut-off for the at-large births. While I'm not high on the OAC getting a 2nd bid either, there is that possibility if someone finishes on a strong run and loses in the OAC tournament championship. The problem for the OAC team, whoever it is, is going to be strength of schedule and other metrics. They just won't look very good.
I was meaning to go through and list the in-region records like I have in the past but a major computer blowup has delayed that. :-[
Here they are (sorted by PCT):
| Hope | 11-0 |
| Bethany | 16-2 |
| Wooster | 15-3 |
| Wittenberg | 14-3 |
| Thiel | 14-4 |
| John Carroll | 13-4 |
| Ohio Wesleyan | 14-5 |
| Wabash | 13-5 |
| Marietta | 13-5 |
| St. Vincent | 12-5 |
| Capital | 12-6 |
| Thomas More | 12-6 |
| Adrian | 7-4 |
| Baldwin-Wallace | 12-8 |
| Trine | 9-6 |
| Hiram | 11-8 |
| Wilmington | 9-7 |
| Calvin | 6-5 |
| DePauw | 8-7 |
| Penn State-Behrend | 9-10 |
| Kenyon | 9-11 |
| Albion | 7-9 |
| Grove City | 8-11 |
| Carnegie Mellon | 7-10 |
| Case Western Reserve | 7-10 |
| Denison | 8-12 |
| Mount Union | 7-11 |
| Ohio Northern | 6-10 |
| Kalamazoo | 6-10 |
| Muskingum | 6-11 |
| Alma | 4-10 |
| Otterbein | 5-14 |
| Heidelberg | 5-14 |
| Allegheny | 5-14 |
| Pitt-Greensburg | 5-14 |
| Westminster (Pa.) | 5-14 |
| Geneva | 4-12 |
| Olivet | 3-9 |
| Oberlin | 4-14 |
| Washington and Jefferson | 3-13 |
| Waynesburg | 3-14 |
| Franciscan (Ohio) | 0-16 |
And here's a similar list if you find RPI to be interesting to the discussion:
| Team | WP | SOS | RPI |
| Hope | 1.000 | 0.524 | 0.643 |
| Wittenberg | 0.824 | 0.544 | 0.614 |
| Wabash | 0.722 | 0.569 | 0.607 |
| Ohio Wesleyan | 0.737 | 0.558 | 0.603 |
| Wooster | 0.833 | 0.519 | 0.598 |
| Adrian | 0.636 | 0.553 | 0.574 |
| Capital | 0.667 | 0.542 | 0.573 |
| Marietta | 0.722 | 0.515 | 0.567 |
| Carnegie Mellon | 0.412 | 0.605 | 0.557 |
| John Carroll | 0.765 | 0.482 | 0.553 |
| DePauw | 0.533 | 0.556 | 0.550 |
| Thiel | 0.778 | 0.473 | 0.549 |
| Bethany | 0.889 | 0.436 | 0.549 |
| Thomas More | 0.667 | 0.500 | 0.542 |
| St. Vincent | 0.706 | 0.486 | 0.541 |
| Baldwin-Wallace | 0.600 | 0.509 | 0.532 |
| Wilmington | 0.563 | 0.505 | 0.519 |
| Hiram | 0.579 | 0.499 | 0.519 |
| Calvin | 0.545 | 0.502 | 0.513 |
| Penn State-Behrend | 0.474 | 0.511 | 0.502 |
| Ohio Northern | 0.375 | 0.542 | 0.501 |
| Case Western Reserve | 0.412 | 0.520 | 0.493 |
| Trine | 0.600 | 0.445 | 0.484 |
| Alma | 0.286 | 0.542 | 0.478 |
| Kenyon | 0.450 | 0.487 | 0.478 |
| Denison | 0.400 | 0.500 | 0.475 |
| Grove City | 0.421 | 0.479 | 0.465 |
| Albion | 0.438 | 0.472 | 0.463 |
| Otterbein | 0.263 | 0.529 | 0.462 |
| Heidelberg | 0.263 | 0.513 | 0.451 |
| Mount Union | 0.389 | 0.467 | 0.448 |
| Muskingum | 0.353 | 0.464 | 0.436 |
| Allegheny | 0.263 | 0.490 | 0.433 |
| Kalamazoo | 0.375 | 0.450 | 0.431 |
| Geneva | 0.250 | 0.488 | 0.429 |
| Olivet | 0.250 | 0.488 | 0.428 |
| Oberlin | 0.222 | 0.491 | 0.424 |
| Pitt-Greensburg | 0.263 | 0.476 | 0.423 |
| Westminster (Pa.) | 0.263 | 0.464 | 0.414 |
| Washington and Jefferson | 0.188 | 0.483 | 0.409 |
| Waynesburg | 0.176 | 0.478 | 0.403 |
| Franciscan (Ohio) | 0.000 | 0.444 | 0.333 |
I am no longer expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids.
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
I am no longer expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids.
What changed your opinion?
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 05:11:44 PM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
I am no longer expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids.
What changed your opinion?
The #3 and #4 teams in the NCAC have too many in-region losses right now. Neither is likely to survive without picking up at least another. That can certainly change if one gets on a hot streak, but it just seems pretty unlikely the NCAC has a viable 3rd team, the only way looks like if Witt and Wooster don't win the NCAC tournament and both get selected as C's.
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 05:11:44 PM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
I am no longer expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids.
What changed your opinion?
The #3 and #4 teams in the NCAC have too many in-region losses right now. Neither is likely to survive without picking up at least another. That can certainly change if one gets on a hot streak, but it just seems pretty unlikely the NCAC has a viable 3rd team, the only way looks like if Witt and Wooster don't win the NCAC tournament and both get selected as C's.
I really wasn't expecting 3 bids from the NCAC either. As you said sac, there is the chance that someone other than Witt or Woo wins the NCAC tournament and if that were to happen, I could see the NCAC getting two Pool C's. But, my overall premise is that I don't see any other GL conference worthy of getting multiple bids with the exception of the OAC and JCU winning out but losing in the OAC Tournament and likewise, the MIAA would be another candidate in the highly unlikely event of Hope not garnering the automatic bid from the MIAA.
Looking at those RPI numbers, nice to see the top 5 teams from the NCAC in the top 11 spots including 4 out of the top 5! 8-) Also of note, the top team from the PrAC doesn't check in until #12 in the RPI standings. THAT says all you need to say about the possibility of a team from the PrAC getting a C bid...
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: WAlum on February 02, 2012, 05:11:44 PM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
I am no longer expecting the NCAC to get 3 bids.
What changed your opinion?
The #3 and #4 teams in the NCAC have too many in-region losses right now. Neither is likely to survive without picking up at least another. That can certainly change if one gets on a hot streak, but it just seems pretty unlikely the NCAC has a viable 3rd team, the only way looks like if Witt and Wooster don't win the NCAC tournament and both get selected as C's.
The fact that a lot of those losses come against regionally ranked teams has to help them out though. I just hope that Bethany doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for tearing through a 10th percentile schedule.
Wabash and OWU are around 90th percentile for schedule difficulty.
Didn't PSU-Behrend get a C bid with a gaudy w/l record and weak rpi last season?
OAC
Capital 10-3
John Carroll 10-3
Marietta 9-4
Wilmington 8-5
Bald-Wally 7-6
The OAC has worked itself in an almost perfect symmetrical separation. BW has a two game lead on the 6th place team, so this is your list of title chasers. Once again this weekend we get the odd happening of all 5 games being top of the standings vs bottom of the standings. So nothing really to focus on. In fact the next 10 days will be short on big games, so if anything happens that's noteworthy it probably means someone was upset by someone they shouldn't have been.
NCAC
Wittenberg 10-1
Wooster 8-3
Ohio Wesleyan 7-4
Wabash 7-4
DePauw 6-5
The more things change........with 5 to go we can put DePauw in the spoiler role and OWU and Wabash right on their heals. Still some big games remaining, but we may miss out on what could have been a number of crucial head banging contests.
Sat game to watch:
Wabash @ Wooster --Wabash won the first meeting way back in December. Another Wabash win would probably just about wrap this thing up for Wittenberg. A Wooster win keeps it interesting.
bonus: Game times are 1, 3 and 5......all with video available so sit back and enjoy a 6 hour NCAC marathon.
MIAA
Hope 9-0
Adrian 6-3
Calvin 5-4
Trine 5-4
Albion 4-5
Hope's win at Adrian Wed. night nearly puts a death grip on the MIAA Championship, Adrian has no more games with Hope so they are at the mercy of the upset God's, and it would probably take more than is reasonably expected even by the most optimistic/pesimistic of fans. With the MIAA's new four team tournament format the run-in will be all about the #2, #3 and #4 seeds and who finds no chair when the music stops. Some head to head games in the next 10 days will shake that out.
Sat. game to watch:
Hope at Albion -- almost always a tough, gritty game at Kresge.
Trine at Adrian -- Last season Adrian collapsed the 2nd half of the year, Trine might be in the middle of theirs. A win for Trine would go a long way to securing a tournament slot.
PAC
Thiel 10-1
Bethany 9-2
Thomas More 9-3
St. Vincent 8-3
Wed. was supposed to be the night that confirmed my season long belief that this league was all about Bethany/Thiel, then they both lost to Thomas More and St. Vincent and just like that we have a reason to post the conference race.
Still counting down to Bethany @ Thiel next Saturday, but if nothing else Wed. may have showed the PAC tournament could be interesting.
Sat game to watch:
Thiel at Thomas More -- Thomas More is fresh off their upset of Bethany, pulling a 2nd in one week would put them right in the thick of things.
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Didn't PSU-Behrend get a C bid with a gaudy w/l record and weak rpi last season?
Yes, and promptly lost 83-54 to Rhode Island College
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Didn't PSU-Behrend get a C bid with a gaudy w/l record and weak rpi last season?
Yeah, but they had the benefit of having all of their losses come against regionally ranked teams (La Roche and Medaille). Bethany won't be afforded that.
2 of Bethany's losses are to Illinois Wesleyan and Thiel and I don't think its too far fetched to think that Thiel will garner one the Great Lakes' meager 6 spots next week. IWU will probably be in the Midwest mix as well.
They could certainly have a similar resume to PSU-Behrend when its done. :-\
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2012, 08:11:28 PM
2 of Bethany's losses are to Illinois Wesleyan and Thiel and I don't think its too far fetched to think that Thiel will garner one the Great Lakes' meager 6 spots next week. IWU will probably be in the Midwest mix as well.
They could certainly have a similar resume to PSU-Behrend when its done. :-\
IWU is out of region, so that's in the secondary criteria. Bethany also just lost to Thomas More, a type of loss that was NOT on PSU-B's resume.
I should hope Thiel doesn't get ranked, but you never know.
Of the top 9 teams in the Great Lakes by winning percentage, four lose today.
#5 Thiel - Lost
#6 John Carroll - Lost
#8 Wabash - Lost
#9 Marietta - Lost
Wooster 77 Wabash 59 --the little giants are putting on a big giant collapse from their earlier position this season. Wooster win keeps the pressure on Witt.
Otterbein 89 John Carroll 75----this score makes the most perfect sense of course. Cap has the OAC lead now.
Ohio Northern 70 Marietta 63
This is probably the knockout blow to Marietta's chances at repeating as OAC champs by themselves. They still have games with JCU and Capital to finish but they'll need help now. Also their Pool C chances are plenty bleak, they'll have to win the OAC tournament to get in now.
Cap and JCU both have to travel to Bald-Wally next week before both travel to Marietta the following week. So B-W and Marietta will have a big say in who wins the OAC.
Also
Thomas More 73 Thiel 63 ---this makes the PAC a tie in the loss column between Thiel and Bethany who play next Saturday. TM and St. Vincent are now just 1 game back in the loss column. Scratch those 'Pool C' chances for Thiel probably, if there were any.
Adrian lost at home to Trine 51-50 in a Van Halen special, throwing the MIAA seedings into disaray. Hope held off Albion on the road 75-69 and clinched a share of the MIAA Championship.
The only bad loss for Wabash was the loss to Denison. That's the killer. Losing to DPU at home was bad but then we stole it back from them there.
But that Denison loss, that's gonna sting.
3-5 since starting 12-1 though.
Thanks to a terrific start, and every other candidate for the 5th-6th spot in the GL losing this weekend (John Carroll, Thiel, Adrian, Marietta), the Little Giants will almost surely be ranked when the official list comes out on Wed.
I'd guess:
1 Hope
2 Wittenberg
3 Wooster
4 Ohio Wesleyan
5 Bethany
6 Wabash
Bethany/Wabash could flip-flop, but I like the other 4.
I have the next three as Thiel, Capital, and John Carroll.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2012, 10:38:12 PM
3-5 since starting 12-1 though.
Tough league though. The NCAC this year is a Big 10 meat grinder, and you couldn't say that in years past.
Gotta win, though. Just saying it's not a 'collapse' but a pretty good team playing other pretty good teams in a pretty good league. There will be blood. And Witt is drinking your milkshake.
Quote from: smedindy on February 04, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2012, 10:38:12 PM
3-5 since starting 12-1 though.
Tough league though. The NCAC this year is a Big 10 meat grinder, and you couldn't say that in years past.
Gotta win, though. Just saying it's not a 'collapse' but a pretty good team playing other pretty good teams in a pretty good league. There will be blood. And Witt is drinking your milkshake.
Agreed. After years and years of being Woo and Witt and (maybe) another guy, I think you are at least on the fringes of joining the elite.
Now if only the MIAA could do the same. :P This year instead of being Hope and Calvin and (maybe) another guy, they've reverted to just Hope. Adrian really looked like a comer for a while.
OAC
Capital 11-3
John Carroll 10-4
Marietta 9-5
Wilmington 9-5
Bald-Wally 8-6
JCU's oopsie moment at Otterbein this past Saturday puts the race in the hands of Capital. Baldwin-Wallace could have the most say in how things play out as they play both Capital and JCU this week in Berea. Marietta meanwhile goes on the road twice this week, with an upset or two at the top could find themselves hosting both Capital and JCU next week with a lot on the line.
Wed. Game to watch:
John Carroll @ Baldwin Wallace: Title race implications aside, this was only a 4 point win for JCU back in early January.
bonus: Otterbein at Capital: fresh off their upset of JCU, Otterbein gets Capital. Capital won the first meeting by 9 on Jan 4. but that was a 1 or 2 possession game the whole way with Cap scoring the last 5 points of the game from the FT line. Upset alert indeed.
NCAC
Wittenberg 11-1
Wooster 9-3
Ohio Wesleyan 8-4
Wabash 7-5
DePauw 7-5
If you wonder why the standings look like they do its because the one team of the top 5 who has played the fewest games vs the other 4 is Wittenberg. That ends this week as Witt finishes with 3 games vs teams in the top 5 and the 4th game vs the only team to hand them an NCAC loss. Might want to buckle-up if you're a Witt fan.
Wed. game to watch
Wooster @ Ohio Wesleyan: why the game to watch, well without a Wooster win here the conference race is pretty much decided, while a Wooster win would lead nicely into Saturdays Woo/Witt encounter. This was a 4 point win for Wooster at home 3 weeks ago.
bonus: Wittenberg @ Wabash: Witt blewout Wabash 3 weeks ago at home. Status quo if Witt wins, a Wabash win could give us the close NCAC finish this league deserves.
MIAA
Hope 10-0
Trine 6-4
Adrian 6-4
Calvin 6-4
Albion 4-6
Hope's clinched at least a share of the league, the real drama is the fight for seedings for the MIAA's half-tournament.
Wed. game to watch:
Albion @ Trine: This is probably Albion's last chance to have a chance at making the tournament. A loss would probably put them 3 back with 3 to go. A Trine win would obviously virtually assure the Thunder of a tournament bid. Trine won by 16 @ Albion 3 weeks ago, and Albion is hurting.
bonus: Kalamazoo @ Hope: D3's new #1 plays its first game with that title against an old rival with a chance to claim the MIAA Championship outright.
PAC
Thiel 11-2
Bethany 10-2
Thomas More 10-3
St. Vincent 9-3
Things have really tightened up thanks to Thomas More's wins over Thiel and Bethany last week.
Wed. game to watch: Pick any of the other 3 GL leagues to follow as the these four PAC teams should win with ease and if they don't they probably don't deserve to be among these four.
bonus: after Wed. only 3 more days until Bethany @ Thiel on Saturday.
Every game is important down the stretch for the GL teams with Pool C hopes. It will be fun to see the official regional rankings this week!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 05, 2012, 12:10:31 AM
Adrian really looked like a comer for a while.
When was this? When they were losing at home to Wooster by 25 or when they were losing at Alma? Sorry, but there isn't an MIAA team other than Hope that has looked like a comer this year...
Regional Rankings are out and much to my delight, no PrAC teams made the cut:
GREAT LAKES
1 Hope 12-0 20-1
2 Wittenberg 15-3 17-4
3 Wooster 16-3 18-3
4 Ohio Wesleyan 15-5 16-5
5 Wabash 13-6 15-6
6 Capital 13-6 14-7
No real surprises here. I think this may be a first to see 4 teams from the NCAC regionally ranked. 8-)
Wooster could really help themselves as they could notch 2 road wins over regionally ranked opponents this week!
Looks like SOS is being valued highly, which is very good.
Best fit ratios across all regions seems to be 60% SOS 40% WP. Last year it was always more like 50-50.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2012, 04:46:25 PM
Looks like SOS is being valued highly, which is very good.
Yeah, check out the Northeast: MIT is only 7th; Albertus Magnus is 12th (each with only one loss)! MIT's SOS is below .500; AM's is a dreadful .435.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2012, 04:46:25 PM
Looks like SOS is being valued highly, which is very good.
Agreed!
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 08, 2012, 04:29:11 PM
Regional Rankings are out and much to my delight, no PrAC teams made the cut:
GREAT LAKES
1 Hope 12-0 20-1
2 Wittenberg 15-3 17-4
3 Wooster 16-3 18-3
4 Ohio Wesleyan 15-5 16-5
5 Wabash 13-6 15-6
6 Capital 13-6 14-7
With last night's NCAC results of Wooster beating OWU, and Wabash beating Witt you could probably pencil in the rankings as...
1. Hope
2. Wooster
3. Wittenberg
4. Wabash
5. Ohio Wesleyan
6. Capital
Wabash/Wesleyan are guaranteed a loss, same with Witt/Wooster in the next week. After tonight these are probably the only 6 that will get ranked this year, unless the committee sneaks Bethany or Thiel in after their game this weekend ..........either Wabash or Wesleyan is probably going to find themselves close to outside this top 6. All bets off if Capital loses again.
OAC
Capital 12-3
John Carroll 10-5
Marietta 10-5
Wilmington 10-5
Bald-Wally 9-6
With B-W's win over JCU on Wed., Capital is in control. Lot's of good match-ups in the coming days and some serious jockeying for OAC seedings.
Sat game to watch:
Capital @ Baldwin Wallace: Has to be this one doesn't it? BW fresh off beating JCU with a chance to take down Capital. A Capital win clinches at least a share of the OAC Championship. Capital won the first game 75-69, nearly blowing a 17 point lead.
Bonus: Wilmington @ John Carroll: Wilmington has kind of hung around in the race and is now tied for 2nd with JCU so this particular game has strong tournament and Championship implications, particularly if someone can beat Capital.
bonus, bonus: Marietta @ Heidelberg: A Marietta win sets up a nice Wed. showdown with Capital in Marietta. Even better if BW beat Capital Saturday.
NCAC
Wittenberg 11-2
Wooster 10-3
Ohio Wesleyan 8-5
Wabash 8-5
DePauw 7-6
Denison 7-6
Wittenberg's loss to Wabash has tightend up the NCAC race. It's really down to two teams and its old friends Witt and Woo. Wesleyan and Wabash have NCAC tournament and NCAA considerations to worry about. We welcome Denison into the mix, and lookout, the Big Red have a favorable finish and could potentially sneak into the 4/5 game with some favorable results. Still much to play for in the NCAC
Saturday game to watch:
Wooster @ Wittenberg---Way, way back in early December Wittenberg won this game by one in the last second. Since then they've stayed on top while others stumbled behind them. This is game 2 of Witt's tough 4 game finish. A Wittenberg win clinches at least a share of the NCAC, a Wooster win produces a tie, with the finish probably favoring Wooster a little. Throw in the Great Lakes rankings and this is a pretty massive game for both teams.
bonus: Ohio Wesleyan @ Hiram--OWU is kind of between big games, they could get caught off guard here.
MIAA
Hope 11-0--Clinched MIAA Championship
Adrian 7-4
Calvin 7-4
Trine 6-5
Albion 5-6
Hope's win Wed. over Kalamazoo clinched the MIAA Championship outright with as little fanfare as is possible. Albion's win at Trine kept the Britons alive in the pursuit of an MIAA tournament slot.
Sat game to watch:
Hope @ Calvin-- Calvin is still battling for tournament positioning. Should be an emotion filled afternoon with Hope's #1 ranking and all. A Hope win would put more pressure on Calvin's remaining two games. A Calvin win keeps them in pursuit of the 2 seed.
Albion @ Kalamazoo-- Another must win for Albion. A loss does not officially eliminate the Britons, they would have to win one of the leagues tie-breakers. A Win and Albion lives to fight another day with Trine having a tough week next week.
Technically Kzoo and Alma are both still alive for the MIAA tournament, but those odds are so low its pretty unlikely to happen.
PAC
Thiel 12-2
Bethany 11-2
Thomas More 11-3
St. Vincent 10-3
As you can see the PAC has bunched up at the top, these four have a staggering 5 game lead in the loss column over the current #5 team. The PAC is a full tournament and these four have locked up a top 4 seed. Its now just a matter of figuring out those seeds.
Sat. Game to Watch:
Bethany @ Thiel-- the long awaited rematch. Thiel whipped Bethany on the Bison's home floor the first time. The winner here is the leader of the PAC going into next week. Thiel would wrap up at least a share of the PAC as they have just one more league game remaining.
bonus: Since the PAC may end up being a 1 bid league to the NCAA, gaining the top seed and therefore home court advantage in the tournament could be paramount.
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2012, 06:44:52 PM
Technically Kzoo and Alma are both still alive for the MIAA tournament, but those odds are so low its pretty unlikely to happen.
Kalamazoo has been eliminated. They can only hope to tie Trine for fourth, but they've already lost to the Thunder twice.
Wittenberg 68 Wooster 62 OT ---this clinches a share of the NCAC for Witt.
BW 75 Capital 64
JCU 84 Wilmington 82 OT
Marietta 82 Heidelberg 69
.....this combination of results pull Marietta and JCU within 1 game of Capital. Marietta will host both Capital and JCU next week. What fun!!!
Hope 83 Calvin 70 ---Region #1 will stay #1
Bethany 70 Thiel 67 -- this gives Bethany a 1 game lead in the loss column over Thiel, Thomas More and St. Vincent.
Us NCAC folks like those OAC results. OWU and Wabash have a definite "C" elimination game Wednesday and I think the NCAC could probably get three teams in the tourney now.
Of course, if Wabash or OWU wins the NCAC tourney, could a fourth NCAC squad sneak in? Say Wabash beats OWU Wednesday but OWU wins the tourney by beating Wabash in the final game (don't laugh - Witt and Wooster could both fall to Wabash and OWU in the semi finals). Could the NCAC be a four-bid league or is that just foolish speculation?
Quote from: smedindy on February 11, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
Us NCAC folks like those OAC results. OWU and Wabash have a definite "C" elimination game Wednesday and I think the NCAC could probably get three teams in the tourney now.
Of course, if Wabash or OWU wins the NCAC tourney, could a fourth NCAC squad sneak in? Say Wabash beats OWU Wednesday but OWU wins the tourney by beating Wabash in the final game (don't laugh - Witt and Wooster could both fall to Wabash and OWU in the semi finals). Could the NCAC be a four-bid league or is that just foolish speculation?
Four might be a stretch.
In KS' last bracketology post on his blog he had Witt, Woo, Wabash IN, with OWU being one of the first four out. http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-292012.html
However because Wabash/OWU play this Wednesday, one of those two will pick up 2 more losses to be a Pool C candidate. I have to believe that would knock them out of the Pool C race.
But a lot happens in the last couple weeks, so its difficult to say how other teams losses affect the pecking order.
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2012, 01:18:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 11, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
Us NCAC folks like those OAC results. OWU and Wabash have a definite "C" elimination game Wednesday and I think the NCAC could probably get three teams in the tourney now.
Of course, if Wabash or OWU wins the NCAC tourney, could a fourth NCAC squad sneak in? Say Wabash beats OWU Wednesday but OWU wins the tourney by beating Wabash in the final game (don't laugh - Witt and Wooster could both fall to Wabash and OWU in the semi finals). Could the NCAC be a four-bid league or is that just foolish speculation?
Four might be a stretch.
In KS' last bracketology post on his blog he had Witt, Woo, Wabash IN, with OWU being one of the first four out. http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-292012.html
However because Wabash/OWU play this Wednesday, one of those two will pick up 2 more losses to be a Pool C candidate. I have to believe that would knock them out of the Pool C race.
But a lot happens in the last couple weeks, so its difficult to say how other teams losses affect the pecking order.
Yeah, four seems like a stretch, but (without looking at the numbers) the best chance would be probably for Wabash to beat OWU, and then for OWU to beat Wabash in the NCAC final (is that even possible with the seeding?). I think Woo and Witt look decently safe for C's at this point. I'll probably run some bracketology numbers again either tonight or tomorrow.
Quite possible, since Wabash and OWU will probably be #3 and #4.
The decision between John Carroll, Capital, and Bethany will be close for the #6 spot this week. Marietta's numbers are there as well, but they probably lose the head-to-head with both JCU and Capital right now. I actually think Bethany gets the nod, but who knows?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2012, 07:34:24 AM
The decision between John Carroll, Capital, and Bethany will be close for the #6 spot this week. Marietta's numbers are there as well, but they probably lose the head-to-head with both JCU and Capital right now. I actually think Bethany gets the nod, but who knows?
Bethany has a win over Baldwin-Wallace, who has wins over JCU, Capital and Marietta. Bethany's 3 losses on the year are to 3 teams who are 17-7, 17-7 and 17-6. So from that stance they have no bad losses really. If we were doing this old way, I'm pretty certain Bethany would be ranked, and it kind of looks like they deserve to be.
This weeks rankings, first record is their in-region record
GREAT LAKES
1 Hope 14-0, 22-1
2 Wittenberg 16-4, 18-5
3 Wooster 17-4, 19-4
4 Ohio Wesleyan 16-6, 17-6
5 Wabash 15-6, 17-6
6 Bethany (W. Va.) 19-2, 20-3
only changes, Wabash/OWU switch positions, Bethany replaces Capital.
Hard to believe we've reached the final week of the regular season.
OAC
Capital 12-4
John Carroll 11-5
Marietta 11-5
Bald-Wally 10-6
Wilmington 10-6
These are the top 5 seeds in the OAC's tournament, its just a matter of sorting out the order. Capital can clinch a share of the OAC title with a win a Marietta tonight.
Wed. Game to watch:
Capital @ Marietta--Marietta's season long battle to be in this position is pretty impressive, remarkable and kind of improbable. Capital wins a share of the OAC with win. A Marietta win could force a 3-way tie with one to go. Cap won this game by 16 in Bexley.
bonus game: Muskingum @ John Carroll --- JCU shouldn't have much trouble with this one, a win gives them a chance at a share of the OAC crown.
NCAC
Wittenberg 12-2---Clinched NCAC Co-Championship, #1 seed
Wooster 10-4
Ohio Wesleyan 9-5
Wabash 9-5
Denison 8-6
DePauw 7-7
Wittenberg's OT win over Wooster Saturday clinched a share of the NCAC title. A Win tonight wraps up the whole thing and breaks Wooster's seven(?) year stranglehold on the NCAC, an impressive accomplishment.
Wed game to watch:
Ohio Wesleyan @ Wabash-- the loser of this one is probably going to see their NCAA at-large chances extinguished. OWU won this one by 2 in Delaware a few weeks ago.
bonus: Wittenberg @ DePauw-- the chances of a Tiger win are 100%, though slim a DePauw win could force Witt into a one game must win against Hiram one of only 2 teams to beat them. Witt won by 4 at the HPER Center.
MIAA
Hope 12-0--MIAA Champion, #1 Seed
Adrian 7-5
Calvin 7-5
Trine 7-5
Albion 6-6
The anti-climactic finish to the top of the MIAA is balanced by the wild and crazy fight for the 2 thru 4 slots in the MIAA's half-tournament.
Wed. game to watch:
Albion @ Alma -- I don't believe an Albion loss actually eliminates them from a chance at the tournament
bonus: Calvin @ Trine -- Calvin won by 27 the first time so that would be a big turnaround for Trine. Resulting win and loss and what they mean is really dependent on what happens with Albion and Adrian.
bonus, bonus: Kalamazoo @ Adrian-- another game with tournament implications for Adrian.
PAC
Bethany 12-2
Thiel 12-3
Thomas More 12-3
St. Vincent 11-3
Wed game to watch:
St. Vincent @ Thomas More -- some minor conference championship implications here that require a Bethany loss, otherwise this game is about seeding in the tournament and potential home court.
bonus: Westminster @ Bethany -- A Bethany win clinches a share of the PAC title. A loss for Bethany creates a 3-way tie.
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2012, 03:55:54 PM
bonus: Calvin @ Trine -- Calvin won by 27 the first time so that would be a big turnaround for Trine. Resulting win and loss and what they mean is really dependent on what happens with Albion and Adrian.
Calvin clinches (at least) the #3 seed with a win.
Not to be too pedantic, but while Witt has clinched at least a share of the NCAC championship, as of this writing I don't believe they have cinched the #1 seed. In the very unlikely event that Witt loses twice and Woo wins twice, they'd end up tied. Witt obviously owns the tiebreaker, but as I understand it, they'd get to choose between hosting the conference tournament or being the #1 seed. Since they would surely choose the former, they would go into the tournament as the #2 in that scenario.
By the time most of you read this, it will probably be a moot point.
UPDATE: It is now a moot point, as Witt clinched the #1 seed and home court (and, more importantly, their first outright NCAC championship since 2004) with a clutch win at DePauw tonight.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 04:48:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2012, 03:55:54 PM
bonus: Calvin @ Trine -- Calvin won by 27 the first time so that would be a big turnaround for Trine. Resulting win and loss and what they mean is really dependent on what happens with Albion and Adrian.
Calvin clinches (at least) the #3 seed with a win.
Actually, now that I stop and think, they could still end up with the #4 seed
possibly (they could lose a tiebreaker to Albion), but the win would clinch a spot in the tourney without the need for a play-in game.
Score of the night
Marietta 73 Capital 48 ---this was a 31-31 tie early in the second half.
http://oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/Box_Scores/20120215_wluq.xml?view=plays
this result, couple with JCU's win makes a 3-way tie atop the OAC. JCU @ Marietta Saturday, and Capital hosts Muskingum.
Ohio Wesleyans win over Wabash looks to drop the Little Giants below Bethany and out of the Pool C consideration. Does Marietta have the numbers to make a late run for a Great Lakes region ranking?
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2012, 12:46:50 AM
Score of the night
Marietta 73 Capital 48 ---this was a 31-31 tie early in the second half.
http://oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/Box_Scores/20120215_wluq.xml?view=plays
this result, couple with JCU's win makes a 3-way tie atop the OAC. JCU @ Marietta Saturday, and Capital hosts Muskingum.
How about Marietta finally playing like everyone thought they would to start the season? After losing back to back roadies at JCU and Cap back in the middle of January, all the Etta Express has done is win 8 of their last 9 games to barge their way back into a tie for first with one game to go in the OAC! Had they not inexplicably lost at ONU a couple of games ago, Etta would be alone in first place right now?! :o
If both Cap and Marietta win Saturday, I believe (not 100% on how the OAC tie breaker works) Marietta would earn the right to host the OAC tournamant due to winning the tie breaker vs. Cap. You have to go all the way down to Wilmington to sort it out but the Quakers were 2-0 vs. Cap this season and were 0-2 vs. Marietta. Who would have thunk it when just a week ago, Cap had a seemingly comfortable 2 game lead heading into the final week of the season that Marietta would have had a chance to pull off a regular season title?
Quote from: WAlum on February 16, 2012, 08:03:25 AM
Ohio Wesleyans win over Wabash looks to drop the Little Giants below Bethany and out of the Pool C consideration. Does Marietta have the numbers to make a late run for a Great Lakes region ranking?
I think you can stick a fork in Wabash's chances for a C after last night's home loss to OWU. The only way Wabash is getting into the NCAA tournament is by winning the NCAC automatic which isn't out of the realm of possibility in this year's NCAC.
As for Marietta, I definitely see them having a shot at getting into the final GL Regional rankings if they win on Saturday. I would even say that Marietta is not a team I would like to face as we head toward the post season. They are one of the hottest teams in the GL at the moment and are finally healthy and playing like the team everyone expected them to be at the start of the season. Of course, I probably just gave them the kiss of death by hyping them up and all... :P
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 16, 2012, 10:45:43 AMIf both Cap and Marietta win Saturday, I believe (not 100% on how the OAC tie breaker works) Marietta would earn the right to host the OAC tournamant due to winning the tie breaker vs. Cap. You have to go all the way down to Wilmington to sort it out but the Quakers were 2-0 vs. Cap this season and were 0-2 vs. Marietta. Who would have thunk it when just a week ago, Cap had a seemingly comfortable 2 game lead heading into the final week of the season that Marietta would have had a chance to pull off a regular season title?
Well, I would have thunk it, for starters. Every veteran observer of D3 men's basketball knows full well that the OAC has the reputation of being the most topsy-turvy league in the country. Doesn't matter whether the league's having an up year or a down year; it's always a crapshoot as to how that league will play out.
Exciting end to the PAC this Saturday. Thiel vs Grove City and Bethany vs St. Vincent.
If Bethany wins they win the conference, obviously. BUT, if Thiel beats GC and Vincent beats Bethany I believe Thiel wins the conference. I think they have the tie breaker over both Thomas Moore and Bethany. The first two tiebreakers are even (head vs head, record vs higher seeds) but the third is in-region SOS, which I think Thiel has the advantage with playing Capital and Wooster. Should be an interesting finish.
Several important games across the region today.
OAC
John Carroll @ Marietta--winner gets at least a piece of the OAC Championship
Muskingum @ Capital--A Capital win earns a share of the OAC Championship
NCAC
Todays games are all about NCAC tournament seeding and for NCAA Pool C chances for a couple teams. I don't know all the NCAC tiebreakers but each game seems to play a part in some way or another.
schedule is here: http://www2.northcoast.org/mbasketball/schedule_2011-12
MIAA
Is also all about tournament seeding. We believe Trine and Adrian are in regardless of outcomes.
Adrian @ Albion
Calvin @ Olivet
Should Calvin and Albion end up in any kind of a tie, there will be a play-in game Monday night between those two. Either Calvin or Albion will be the fourth seed with opposing results.
PAC
Bethany @ St. Vincent-- Bethany win the PAC with a win. A loss could create a 3-way tie.
Grove City @ Thiel-- Thiel needs a win and a Bethany loss to win a piece of the PAC.
Thomas More is off this weedend, they would earn a share of the league with a Bethany loss.
John Carroll beats Marietta 78-76 in OT to win the OAC regular season title! Joe Meyer hit his only triple of the game with 6 seconds left to lift the Blue Streaks to the big road win.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 18, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
John Carroll beats Marietta 78-76 in OT to win the OAC regular season title! Joe Meyer hit his only triple of the game with 6 seconds left to lift the Blue Streaks to the big road win.
Capital holds off Muskingum 60-55 to claim a share of the OAC title. JCU gains #1 seed with 2 wins over Marietta to Cap's one.
The OAC has changed its tournament format and wins the award for goofiest post-season tournament format on record.
First Round: Monday, February 20#8 Otterbein (6-12) plays at the #5 Wilmington (10-8)-8p.m.
#7 Mount Union (7-11) plays at the #6 Ohio Northern (8-10)-7:30
Second Round: February, Tuesday 21winner of the #8/#5 game plays at the #4 Baldwin-Wallace (11-7)-7:30
winner of the #7/#6 game plays at the #3 Marietta (12-6)-7:30
Third Round: Thursday, February 23winner of the #8/#5 vs. # 4 bracket plays at the #1 John Carroll (13-5)-7:30
winner of the #7/#6 vs. #3 bracket plays at the #2 Capital (13-5)-7:30
Finals: Saturday, February 25at the highest remaining seed-TBA
Actually, I've seen that kind of set-up in the Horizon League (for one) and put their top seeds into the semi-finals. Some of the lower majors wanted to protect their #1 and #2 seeds. But in D-3 I don't know if it makes that much sense.
This is the first I have seen the OAC setup and I like it for a couple of reasons:
1) In years past when the NCAC was much weaker than it was this year the quarter final game really hurt #1 or #2's strength of schedule. That has a much smaller chance of happening here
2) Basketball is the most upset prone game. If a bottom tier team gets "hot" - it has to sustain that over three games to get a shot at the regular season leaders - I like that.
3) I can't tell from the post about the championship game but the dreaded Neutral court game is eliminated through the semi's - that has to have fans very happy.
Because of geography the OAC is probably one of the few conferences that can consider this setup but I will be looking at how it plays out.
Conference tournament play begins tonight
PAC
#9 Waynesburg 4-21 at #8 Westminster 6-19---winner gets #1 Bethany on Tuesday already. Westminster won both games this season, at home by 3, on the road by 17
OAC
#8 Otterbein 9-16 at #5 Wilmington 12-12 -- winner travels to #4 Baldwin-Wallace on Tues. These teams split their season series.
#7 Mount Union 11-14 at #6 Ohio Northern 12-13 --winner travels to #3 Marietta on Tues. ONU lost to MtU twice this year.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2012, 05:43:54 PM
OAC
#8 Otterbein 9-16 at #5 Wilmington 12-12 -- winner travels to #4 Baldwin-Wallace on Tues. These teams split their season series.
#7 Mount Union 11-14 at #6 Ohio Northern 12-13 --winner travels to #3 Marietta on Tues. ONU lost to MtU twice this year.
#8 Otterbein 65, #5 Wilmington 76
#7 Mount Union 52, #6 Ohio Northern 56
The Wilmington loss marks the end of the outstanding, 40-season career of Otterbein's Dick Reynolds, who has announced that he will retire.
Matchups for tomorrow in the OAC:No. 6 Ohio Northern at No. 3 Marietta, 7:30 pm
No. 5-Wilmington at No. 4 Baldwin-Wallace, 7:30 pm
Waynesburg stuns Westminster 63-57 on the road to earn the right to travel to Bethany Tuesday. The two teams combined for 109 shots......49 of them 3's.
Tuesday Tournament action
OAC
#6 Ohio Northern at #3 Marietta--the two split this year, both winning on each others floor.
#5 Wilmington at #4 Baldwin-Wallace--Wilmington won both regular season games, by 3 at home, and by 7 in OT at B-W.
Thursday Semi-Finals both at 7:30
ONU/Marietta at Capital
Wilmington/B-W at John Carroll
NCAC
all times 7:30
#8 Kenyon at #1 Wittenberg---played only once this season, an 8 point Witt win at Kenyon
#5 Denison at #4 Wabash--teams split this season, winning on each others floor.
#6 Hiram at #3 Ohio Wesleyan---OWU won both games this season by 13 and 7
#7 DePauw at #2 Wooster--teams split this season, played just 4 days ago, a 7 point Wooster win
Friday Semi-Finals at highest remaining seed
Hiram/OWU vs DePauw/Wooster
Denison/Wabash vs Kenyon/Wittenberg
PAC
#7 Washington and Jefferson at #2 Thiel 7pm--Theil won both games this year by 15 and 4
#6 Geneva at #3 Thomas More 7:30pm--Thomas More won both games by 12 and 14
#5 Grove City at #4 St. Vincent 8pm--These teams split winning on each other floor by 4 and 5
#9 Waynesburg at #1 Bethany 8pm--Bethany won both meetings by 28 and 29
Semi-Finals on Thurdays at two highest seeds:
The PAC re-seeds after quarterfinal play.
Rather than post all the links to livestats and video, I'll just point out you can find them either on the conference sites or the individual schools sites.
As it always seems to be, the OAC provides upsets in its tournament.
Wilmington 76 Baldwin-Wallace 64
Ohio Northern 57 Marietta 54--Marietta 3 doesn't go in at the end.
Fri semi's
Wilmington @ John Carroll
Ohio Northern @ Capital
Thiel's season probably came to a crashing end tonight as they lost to Washington & Jefferson 91-89
Thomas More clobbered Geneva 82-56 to advance and will get to host one of the two PAC semi-finals.
In the NCAC
Denison pulled the mild upset over Wabash by the convincing score of 74-60. This probably puts an end to Wabash's season.
Wittenberg 73 Kenyon 61--Witt will host the semi's and play Denison.
Wooster 59 DePauw 51
Ohio Wesleyan 96 Hiram 86--OWU will play Wooster
Hiram 86
Ohio Wesleyan 96
NCAC Friday night semifinals at Wittenberg:
#3 Ohio Wesleyan vs. #2 Wooster
#5 Denison vs. #1 Wittenberg
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2012, 09:08:04 PM
Thiel's season probably came to a crashing end tonight as they lost to Washington & Jefferson 91-89
Thomas More clobbered Geneva 82-56 to advance and will get to host one of the two PAC semi-finals.
Finishing the PAC results.
Bethany 82-69
St. Vincent held off Grove City 71-64.
Semi-finals, Fri 7pm
Washington and Jefferson @ Bethany
St. Vincent @ Thomas More
Isn't the OAC playing on Thursday?
http://www.oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/2012Tournament (http://www.oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/2012Tournament)
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2012, 11:29:43 PM
Isn't the OAC playing on Thursday?
http://www.oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/2012Tournament (http://www.oac.org/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/2012Tournament)
Yes. Semis are on Thursday and the final will be on Saturday at the highest remaining seed.
Have to say, I was a bit surprised (yes Sager I know the OAC can be a volatile place) to see Marietta lose at home last night to ONU. The dreaded kiss of death came to fruition from me hyping them up as a dangerous team coming down the stretch of the season. The Etta express promptly lost their last two games after I sung their praises last week to see their season come crashing to an end... :-\
New regional rankings are out.
Great Lakes:
Hope 16-0 24-1
Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
Wooster 19-4 21-4
Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
Bethany (WV) 21-2 22-3
John Carroll 15-6 18-6
Wabash is out, Bethany moves up one slot, and John Carroll comes in.
Quote from: monsoon on February 22, 2012, 03:09:51 PM
New regional rankings are out.
Great Lakes:
Hope 16-0 24-1
Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
Wooster 19-4 21-4
Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
Bethany (WV) 21-2 22-3
John Carroll 15-6 18-6
Wabash is out, Bethany moves up one slot, and John Carroll comes in.
From the looks of these, even if Bethany loses in the PAC tournament they will probably stay ahead of the OAC Pool C candidate(and that's really only JCU). The trouble comes if OWU loses in its semi-finals and gets ranked behind Bethany next week. I'm not sure Bethany is a great C candidate on a national level, OWU could get hung out to dry.
Probably moot, as I expect Bethany to win the PAC tournament without too much trouble.
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2012, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: monsoon on February 22, 2012, 03:09:51 PM
New regional rankings are out.
Great Lakes:
Hope 16-0 24-1
Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
Wooster 19-4 21-4
Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
Bethany (WV) 21-2 22-3
John Carroll 15-6 18-6
Wabash is out, Bethany moves up one slot, and John Carroll comes in.
From the looks of these, even if Bethany loses in the PAC tournament they will probably stay ahead of the OAC Pool C candidate(and that's really only JCU). The trouble comes if OWU loses in its semi-finals and gets ranked behind Bethany next week. I'm not sure Bethany is a great C candidate on a national level, OWU could get hung out to dry.
Probably moot, as I expect Bethany to win the PAC tournament without too much trouble.
I don't think a Pool C OWU would be ranked behind a Pool C Bethany. OWU will be getting an SOS boost for any game played, but Bethany's SOS will probably be going down (I'm assuming they're playing home games for the Tourney).
But your point is valid. Bethany will not be a good Pool C candidate, so anyone getting stuck behind them will be royally screwed, as they say.
Just throwing this out there, but I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the following scenario. It looks as though both Witt and Wooster are strong Pool C candidates regardless of how they finish. Hypothetically speaking, let's say they both lose in the NCAC semis on Friday meaning Denison and OWU would advance to the finals. And then, lets say that Denison finds a way to beat OWU in the finals punching the Big Red's ticket into the big dance. How likely would it be to see the NCAC then get three C's?
From where I'm sitting, if Denison can stay hot, the NCAC could very likely see 4 teams get into the dance...
I was kind of thinking the same thing ScotsFan.
Of course, my question is if Witt is able to win the conference tournament or at least make the finals does that lock up possible hosting for a first round site?
From the MIAA:
Hope 87
Calvin 80
Adrian 59
Trine 50
#2 Adrian plays at #1 Hope on Saturday afternoon.
maybe at hope
Quote from: pennstghs on February 22, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
I was kind of thinking the same thing ScotsFan.
Of course, my question is if Witt is able to win the conference tournament or at least make the finals does that lock up possible hosting for a first round site?
I'd say Witt or Wooster would be in pretty good shape for hosting for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament if either of them bring home the tournament championship.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 23, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
Quote from: pennstghs on February 22, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
I was kind of thinking the same thing ScotsFan.
Of course, my question is if Witt is able to win the conference tournament or at least make the finals does that lock up possible hosting for a first round site?
I'd say Witt or Wooster would be in pretty good shape for hosting for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament if either of them bring home the tournament championship.
One thing to remember is Transylvania has a pretty solid resume for being a host the first weekend. With Hope likely grabbing one that probably leaves one other for the Great Lakes area (Transylvania is in Lexington). I could see Transylvania hosting and Witt/Wooster having to go on the road.
The OAC Tournament semi-finals are tonight.
#5 Wilmington @ #1 John Carroll 7:30pm--JCU won both previous meetings by 18 at Wilmington, and by 2 in OT at home just 2 weeks ago
#6 Ohio Northern @ #2 Capital 7:30pm--Capital won both previous meeting by just 4 and 3. This is the 3rd game in 4 nights for ONU and 4th in 6 days.
Video, live stats, audio can all be found on the host schools websites.
The PAC Tournament semi-finals are tonight
#4 St. Vincent @ #3 Thomas More 7pm--these teams split their previous meeting. St. V won by 15 at home, Thomas More won by 7 at home. TM is on a 9 game winning streak.
#7 Washington & Jefferson @ #1 Bethany 7pm-- W&J did not have fun playing Bethany this year losing the two previous meetings by 19 and 32
video, live stats, audio links are on the conference website...... http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/pac_m-basketball.html
Transylvania is also very well positioned geographically because they can host teams like Randolph-Macon, Birmingham-Southern, and Great Lakes teams as far away as Hope (not sure the mileage and only using it as an example) within the 500 miles rule. That will make them very attractive for the committee in terms of trying to balance the bracket.
Yep. Transylvania, like Centre and Maryville, is a "bridge" school that helps to link widely divergent clusters of D3 schools in terms of tournament geography. Bridge schools such as Transy are among the necessary ingredients to make a good bracket, considering the financial limitations imposed upon the selection committee when constructing the bracket.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 23, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
Quote from: pennstghs on February 22, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
I was kind of thinking the same thing ScotsFan.
Of course, my question is if Witt is able to win the conference tournament or at least make the finals does that lock up possible hosting for a first round site?
I'd say Witt or Wooster would be in pretty good shape for hosting for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament if either of them bring home the tournament championship.
I have Witt as having the #20 tournament resume in the country, and Wooster as #28. Figuring the top 16 (ish) teams host, then either one has some work to do. Witt could potentially be one of the last few hosts, but I'm not as sure about Wooster.
I agree that Transy could have a good hosting position, both in rankings and geography. Wooster went there not that long ago--maybe '06?
My challenge in trying to suss out where the committee might send GL teams stems from these points:
1) Hope probably deserves (and could get?) a first round bye on the basis of national seeding. (Note: I'm not sure what's likely to be needed for geographical reasons)
2) Hope (and possibly Transy as well) also deserves (but may not get) an "easy" early draw. It doesn't seem like the Pool C NCAC team(s) would meet this definition, though they would make a good potential second-rounder.
3) The (possibly 3) NCAC teams shouldn't play each other in the first round per NCAA guidance, and so must go to different sites or at least different matchups at one site.
4) The region is likely to only get 2 Pool C bids, both from the NCAC, so there won't be that many teams to go around (unless there are major tournament upsets).
One unorthodox way that an NCAC team might host would be if Hope gets the bye and the NCAC team hosts a Thursday game with the winner to Hope on Saturday.
Otherwise, I'm thinking that if the NCAC draws three teams they might all go in different directions: I could see one in a "Hope pod", one in a "Transy pod", and one somewhere else altogether (e.g., OWU to a "Midwest" bracket or Wooster to an "East" bracket).
Tied up at Thomas More just over 6 to play
http://www.thomasmore.edu/athletics/mbasketball/Live/xlive.htm
Bethany up 12 7 to go
http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/bethanywv.portal#
Wilmington has led JCU most of the way, up 9 with 16 to play
http://www.sidearmstats.com/jcu/mbball/scoreboard.aspx
Early 2nd a low scoring close one in Bexley.
http://webapps.capital.edu/athletics/mbb/xlive.htm
Thomas More 75 St. Vincent 70......timeout with 2 seconds left down 5, come'on dude. ::)
Bethany 82 Wash & Jeff 69......Bethany pulled away in the end, everytime I checked in it was a 1 or 2 possession game.
Saturday PAC Championship game 7:30 pm
Thomas More @ Bethany
Crunchtime in Ohio.
tied up with 5 to go in Cleveland.
http://www.sidearmstats.com/jcu/mbball/scoreboard.aspx
Cap leads ONU by 8, a little over 9 to play.
http://webapps.capital.edu/athletics/mbb/xlive.htm
Wilmington 79 John Carroll 74---JCU actually fought back from a big first half deficit. The game was close right to the final minute before Wilmington put it away from the stripe.
Capital 66 Ohio Northern 61--quite the fight right to the end. ONU just refused to fold up their tent and go home. I enjoyed watching that.
OAC Final Saturday
#5 Wilmington @ #2 Capital, 7:30pm
Does last night's loss pretty much end any chance that the JCU gets a C?
kilted, good points you brought up about spreading out the NCAC if 3 teams make it in. The thing is, what makes sense to us is an entirely different matter when it comes to what the NCAA does when seeding the D3 tournament?! :P
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 24, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
Does last night's loss pretty much end any chance that the JCU gets a C?
kilted, good points you brought up about spreading out the NCAC if 3 teams make it in. The thing is, what makes sense to us is an entirely different matter when it comes to what the NCAA does when seeding the D3 tournament?! :P
Yep. JCU is done. No shot at a Pool C.
It's going to be difficult to send the NCAC to two different locations with 3 teams without someone getting a tougher than expected game. It would work better if an NCAC school was chosen as a host. But I think Transylvania is going to get to host.
at Hope
CCIW Pool C
NCAC Pool C
Nathcon A
Hope
at Transylvania
OAC A
NCAC A
NCAC C
Transylvania
....and this is leaving out Bethany/Thomas More. Both would be obvious choices to replace the NCAC C vs Transy.
Transylvania would certainly deserve an easier opponent than Witt or Woo. I think there's a real chance one of the NCAC shools is going to get a really long road trip like to UW-Whitewater/CCIW A, western NY/PA or even Virginia. I don't think the NCAC Champion hosting is out of the question either, I just think Transylvania's proximity would make it a little difficult on the committee to find teams if Witt and Transy both hosted next weekend. Wooster/Transy would be a lot easier on the committee because they could pull teams from Western NY/PA etc. very easily.
The NCAC not hosting might be a first in quite awhile. I personally can't remember a year the NCAC or OAC reps didn't get at least one school hosting.
They could send one NCAC 'C' east or west. OWU was sent east when they won the NCAC automatic a few years ago and Wooster has had to make the trek far west when they made the 499.75 mile trek to WashU a few years ago as well. I could see the PrAC champ being sent to Transy and the second NCAC 'C' getting shipped east or west if it comes to that. Of course, this is assuming Transy wins the HCAC. If they lose, and either Witt or Woo wins the NCAC tournament, I don't see the Pios hosting.
Wooster 89 OWU 80
KS had OWU the #13 Pool C team this week. For OWU to make the tournament as a Pool C they really need to count on as few tournament upsets for the AQ's as possible.
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/news/athletics/mbasketball/livestats/xlive.htm
At the moment I typed this Denison was ahead 24-6 :o
Halftime score - Witt 19 Denison 39
That's one heck of a big hole to try to get out of
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 24, 2012, 06:42:55 PM
They could send one NCAC 'C' east or west. OWU was sent east when they won the NCAC automatic a few years ago and Wooster has had to make the trek far west when they made the 499.75 mile trek to WashU a few years ago as well. I could see the PrAC champ being sent to Transy and the second NCAC 'C' getting shipped east or west if it comes to that. Of course, this is assuming Transy wins the HCAC. If they lose, and either Witt or Woo wins the NCAC tournament, I don't see the Pios hosting.
SF- wasn't that Wash U game at Augustana?
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 24, 2012, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 24, 2012, 06:42:55 PM
They could send one NCAC 'C' east or west. OWU was sent east when they won the NCAC automatic a few years ago and Wooster has had to make the trek far west when they made the 499.75 mile trek to WashU a few years ago as well. I could see the PrAC champ being sent to Transy and the second NCAC 'C' getting shipped east or west if it comes to that. Of course, this is assuming Transy wins the HCAC. If they lose, and either Witt or Woo wins the NCAC tournament, I don't see the Pios hosting.
SF- wasn't that Wash U game at Augustana?
Yes, Wooster went all the way to Rock Island, IL (Augustana) and lost in the first round to Wash U. It was James Cooper's senior year. Rock Island is just across the river from Iowa. ::)
Sure was. And we couldn't get back to Ohio because of the blizzard...
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 24, 2012, 08:53:02 PM
Halftime score - Witt 19 Denison 39
That's one heck of a big hole to try to get out of
I forget which game it was but I thought Witt came back from 18 down earlier this season. Double-digits anyway.
Holy crap did I just hear that right?
Denison hasn't won in Springfield in 62 years?
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 09:07:41 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 24, 2012, 08:53:02 PM
Halftime score - Witt 19 Denison 39
That's one heck of a big hole to try to get out of
I forget which game it was but I thought Witt came back from 18 down earlier this season. Double-digits anyway.
I don't know if it was 18, but Witt came back from being down big to OWU.
Don't look now, but it's a 7 point game with a minute and a half to go. Maybe too little too late for Witt though...
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 09:26:40 PM
Holy crap did I just hear that right?
Denison hasn't won in Springfield in 62 years?
Amazing to see the end of a 62 year run - congrats to the Big Red.
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 24, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 09:26:40 PM
Holy crap did I just hear that right?
Denison hasn't won in Springfield in 62 years?
Amazing to see the end of a 62 year run - congrats to the Big Red.
I have a great question for my uncle. Were you a student and were you there when Denison last beat Wittenberg in Springfield? :-\
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 23, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
I agree that Transy could have a good hosting position, both in rankings and geography. Wooster went there not that long ago--maybe '06?
My challenge in trying to suss out where the committee might send GL teams stems from these points:
1) Hope probably deserves (and could get?) a first round bye on the basis of national seeding. (Note: I'm not sure what's likely to be needed for geographical reasons)
2) Hope (and possibly Transy as well) also deserves (but may not get) an "easy" early draw. It doesn't seem like the Pool C NCAC team(s) would meet this definition, though they would make a good potential second-rounder.
3) The (possibly 3) NCAC teams shouldn't play each other in the first round per NCAA guidance, and so must go to different sites or at least different matchups at one site.
4) The region is likely to only get 2 Pool C bids, both from the NCAC, so there won't be that many teams to go around (unless there are major tournament upsets).
One unorthodox way that an NCAC team might host would be if Hope gets the bye and the NCAC team hosts a Thursday game with the winner to Hope on Saturday.
Otherwise, I'm thinking that if the NCAC draws three teams they might all go in different directions: I could see one in a "Hope pod", one in a "Transy pod", and one somewhere else altogether (e.g., OWU to a "Midwest" bracket or Wooster to an "East" bracket).
Just some thoughts:
1 - Hope may not get that bye... since there are only two and they tend to be used for geographical reasons - like the west and northwest parts of the country, Texas, etc. With just two byes... can't imagine anyone except in geographical locations getting those byes.
2 - Not sure what could be "easy" anymore... there has been a lot of parity this season... the first weekend could be one of the most interesting on the men's side in a long time.
3 - You are right, they will have to go somewhere... I believe the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, East could be regions they could head depending on hosting schools. They could also be at the same site, but set-up to play in the second game - which may be an unavoidable chance.
4 - Yeah... OAC may be in line for a Pool C bid depending on today's results... we shall see.
Final - in overtime:
Hope 65
Adrian 62
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 23, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
I agree that Transy could have a good hosting position, both in rankings and geography. Wooster went there not that long ago--maybe '06?
My challenge in trying to suss out where the committee might send GL teams stems from these points:
1) Hope probably deserves (and could get?) a first round bye on the basis of national seeding. (Note: I'm not sure what's likely to be needed for geographical reasons)
2) Hope (and possibly Transy as well) also deserves (but may not get) an "easy" early draw. It doesn't seem like the Pool C NCAC team(s) would meet this definition, though they would make a good potential second-rounder.
3) The (possibly 3) NCAC teams shouldn't play each other in the first round per NCAA guidance, and so must go to different sites or at least different matchups at one site.
4) The region is likely to only get 2 Pool C bids, both from the NCAC, so there won't be that many teams to go around (unless there are major tournament upsets).
One unorthodox way that an NCAC team might host would be if Hope gets the bye and the NCAC team hosts a Thursday game with the winner to Hope on Saturday.
Otherwise, I'm thinking that if the NCAC draws three teams they might all go in different directions: I could see one in a "Hope pod", one in a "Transy pod", and one somewhere else altogether (e.g., OWU to a "Midwest" bracket or Wooster to an "East" bracket).
Just some thoughts:
1 - Hope may not get that bye... since there are only two and they tend to be used for geographical reasons - like the west and northwest parts of the country, Texas, etc. With just two byes... can't imagine anyone except in geographical locations getting those byes.
2 - Not sure what could be "easy" anymore... there has been a lot of parity this season... the first weekend could be one of the most interesting on the men's side in a long time.
3 - You are right, they will have to go somewhere... I believe the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, East could be regions they could head depending on hosting schools. They could also be at the same site, but set-up to play in the second game - which may be an unavoidable chance.
4 - Yeah... OAC may be in line for a Pool C bid depending on today's results... we shall see.
Dave-
Yes, I understand (and agree) that it's most likely that both byes will be needed for geographical reasons. But, if there are enough teams around to make pods elsewhere that one "seeded bye" is available, I have to think that Hope (which is unbeaten in the NCAA's eyes) would be in the running for it.
There were more byes available, but in 2008 it looks like Capital hosted Bethany in the first round with the winner traveling to Hope--a scenario that could play out this year as something like Witt/Woo hosting the OAC champ or a non-Transy HCAC winner.
NCAC could still end up with anywhere from 2 to 4 teams in. A Wooster win tonight might help keep OWU on the right side of the bubble. A Denison upset of Wooster insures three teams in (Woo/Witt are both locks), but probably helps keep OWU out.
Also- it's worth remembering the 2010 tournament draw: Wooster hosted, but didn't draw any other NCAC or OAC teams into its pod. Instead, both OAC teams drew long road trips to the ODAC--John Carroll to Guilford for a first rounder against Maryville, and Wilmington to Eastern Mennonite for a first rounder against Lycoming. Hope went to UWSP that year. It's at least possible that the committee basically splits them all up.
To your point #4, I don't think the OAC has any Pool C chances. In TitanQ's current Pool C selections, he does have JCU "at the table" at the end, but JCU's resume doesn't look that great compared to the other teams. They're staying home, and Wilmington and Capital both don't have a chance at Pool C. The OAC is a one-bid league this year.
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 10:07:31 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 24, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 09:26:40 PM
Holy crap did I just hear that right?
Denison hasn't won in Springfield in 62 years?
Amazing to see the end of a 62 year run - congrats to the Big Red.
I have a great question for my uncle. Were you a student and were you there when Denison last beat Wittenberg in Springfield? :-\
and my uncle returned the answer
No, I was a H.S. sr. that yr., leading Homer to a 0-16 record!
Here are the pods containing Great Lakes teams.
at Cabrini (26-1)
Castleton State (19-9)
Hobart (22-5)
Ohio Wesleyan (20-7)
at Transylvania (23-4)
Carroll (16-9)
Wittenberg (21-6)
Birmingham-Southern (25-2)
at Wooster (24-4)
Maryville (18-9)
Randolph-Macon (21-6)
Capital (18-9)
at Hope (26-1)
Westminster (MO) (17-10)
UW-Stevens Point (20-7)
Illinois Wesleyan (19-7)
Thursday:
at St. Mary's (MD) (19-7)
Bethany (25-3)
winner plays Saturday:
at Virginia Wesleyan (25-3)
Quote from: monsoon on February 27, 2012, 04:16:19 PM
Here are the pods containing Great Lakes teams.
at Cabrini (26-1)
Castleton State (19-9)
Hobart (22-5)
Ohio Wesleyan (20-7)
at Transylvania (23-4)
Carroll (16-9)
Wittenberg (21-6)
Birmingham-Southern (25-2)
at Wooster (24-4)
Maryville (18-9)
Randolph-Macon (21-6)
Capital (18-9)
at Hope (26-1)
Westminster (MO) (17-10)
UW-Stevens Point (20-7)
Illinois Wesleyan (19-7)
Thursday:
at St. Mary's (MD) (19-7)
Bethany (25-3)
winner plays Saturday:
at Virginia Wesleyan (25-3)
This list clearly demonstrates the importance of the regional system. ??? ::)
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
This list clearly demonstrates the importance of the regional system. ??? ::)
I always feel like this shows that the NCAA is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
NCAA:
Calvin and Hope: NATHCON, CCIW, WIAC, MWC are out of region for you. Stop scheduling them during the season.NCAA:
Calvin and Hope: NATHCON, CCIW, WIAC, MWC fits best for you 'geographically', so we'll nearly always put you with them come tournament time.
Our Great Lakes region friends from Bethany bowed out of the tournament to St. Mary's, MD last night. Looks like it got away from them early and they just never really recovered. http://www.bethanywv.edu/statfiles/MBB11/betsmcm1.htm
Seeing Nick Wilcox held to 3 points is kind of amazing to me. He looked to be a very solid, challenging player to defend when Bethany came up here to play Olivet in December.
I'd say the boxscore points out their lack of depth but I think each of their boxscores has looked like that one. British Alexander with an iron man 40 minutes.
Looking at the brackets I thought maybe Bethany should have been hosting this game, seeing how it played out I doubt it would have made too much of a difference.
With British Alexander and Brady Pacific, they certainly have contenders for the tournament All-Name team!
Disappointing result from Cabrini:
Ohio Wesleyan 60
Hobart 64
Great Lakes region teams start the tourney 0-2. :(
We're still nearly a month away from the first set of Regional Rankings, but it's fun to hypothesize anyway. My crack at the "current" rankings along with regional record and results vs. possibly ranked teams.
1. Ohio Wesleyan (13-0, Capital, Wittenberg) -- no other option right now.
2. Wooster (12-2, Wittenberg, L-Adrian, L-Transylvania) -- They're "helped" if Adrian doesn't make the rankings at any point this year.
3. Calvin (9-0, Adrian) -- Calvin could be considered starting at #2 - the common opponent of Adrian helps them over Wooster - but their in-region weighted SOS is terrible right now. One could even justify dropping them further. Calvin is similarly hurt if Adrian doesn't crack the rankings to become at least "one ranked, always ranked".
4. Wittenberg (8-3, Capital, L-Wooster, L-Ohio Wesleyan) -- I would otherwise put Capital here (though it's close), but the head-to-head would likely give the advantage to Wittenberg.
5. Capital (11-2, L-Wittenberg, L-Ohio Wesleyan) -- The head-to-head and sketchy SOS number is enough to slide Capital below Wittenberg.
6. Thomas More (12-2, L-Transylvania) -- Could argue for Thomas More starting at #4, but they don't have a tough schedule and haven't beaten anyone noteworthy. Their head-to-head win over St. Vincent on Saturday puts them here instead of St. Vincent.
On the outside
Adrian (7-3, Wooster, L-Calvin) -- They'd have been as high as third a week ago, but a 1-3 start to conference play won't help. They'll need a strong showing from here on out - including perhaps a win over Calvin - to climb back in the race. Their SOS number still looks good.
Hope (6-3, Adrian, L-Wheaton (IL), L-North Central) -- Despite the 6-3 record, Hope is still very much alive in the region. They'll need a good MIAA showing (4-0 so far) and probably a win or two over Calvin, but they could very well be in the hunt at some point. Their schedule to date has been quite tough.
St. Vincent (9-3, L-Thomas More) -- St. Vincent was a borderline candidate anyway, but their head-to-head loss versus Thomas More will keep them down for a while.
February 6th will be the first of three public rankings.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 14, 2013, 03:36:24 PM
February 6th will be the first of three public rankings.
Has there been a handbook? I haven't stumbled across it yet.
I have asked and been told it is ready... but I have not found it either (for both men's and women's)... however, I do have a few emails/contacts out to find out where it might be. I will let you know when I learn more.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 14, 2013, 03:39:20 PM
I have asked and been told it is ready... but I have not found it either (for both men's and women's)... however, I do have a few emails/contacts out to find out where it might be. I will let you know when I learn more.
Thanks!
All 4 GL region conferences have match-ups with teams at the top of their respective standings this week.
Wednesday
Marietta @ Capital
Hope @ Calvin
Saturday
Wooster @ Ohio Wesleyan
Thomas More @ Bethany *both in a 3-way tie
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2013, 02:20:28 PM2. Wooster (12-2, Wittenberg, L-Adrian, L-Transylvania) -- They're "helped" if Adrian doesn't make the rankings at any point this year.
That's not necessarily true. The selection committee looks at both quantity and quality with regard to in-region record versus ranked opponents. If Wooster comes up short on the number of ranked teams it's played -- a problem that's happened to NCAC teams more than once -- that extra game against Adrian could be a boon, even though it was a loss.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2013, 06:58:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2013, 02:20:28 PM2. Wooster (12-2, Wittenberg, L-Adrian, L-Transylvania) -- They're "helped" if Adrian doesn't make the rankings at any point this year.
That's not necessarily true. The selection committee looks at both quantity and quality with regard to in-region record versus ranked opponents. If Wooster comes up short on the number of ranked teams it's played -- a problem that's happened to NCAC teams more than once -- that extra game against Adrian could be a boon, even though it was a loss.
Ah, the old double-count the SOS trick!
Hey, I'm not saying that I agree with it or that it makes any sense. I just know that this is how the committee operates.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2013, 07:09:53 PM
Hey, I'm not saying that I agree with it or that it makes any sense. I just know that this is how the committee operates.
Oh, I know. They do a lot of boneheaded things.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2013, 06:58:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2013, 02:20:28 PM2. Wooster (12-2, Wittenberg, L-Adrian, L-Transylvania) -- They're "helped" if Adrian doesn't make the rankings at any point this year.
That's not necessarily true. The selection committee looks at both quantity and quality with regard to in-region record versus ranked opponents. If Wooster comes up short on the number of ranked teams it's played -- a problem that's happened to NCAC teams more than once -- that extra game against Adrian could be a boon, even though it was a loss.
Transylvania might not be ranked either but I haven't really looked at the Midwest. Before the next ranking they play Rose-Hulman again.
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2013, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2013, 06:58:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2013, 02:20:28 PM2. Wooster (12-2, Wittenberg, L-Adrian, L-Transylvania) -- They're "helped" if Adrian doesn't make the rankings at any point this year.
That's not necessarily true. The selection committee looks at both quantity and quality with regard to in-region record versus ranked opponents. If Wooster comes up short on the number of ranked teams it's played -- a problem that's happened to NCAC teams more than once -- that extra game against Adrian could be a boon, even though it was a loss.
Transylvania might not be ranked either but I haven't really looked at the Midwest. Before the next ranking they play Rose-Hulman again.
I would guess Transy would be 3rd in the MW right now behind North Central and Augustana.
Even with 3 in-region losses?
Quote from: sac on January 15, 2013, 02:10:30 PM
Even with 3 in-region losses?
Few teams with fewer.
Augustana 11-3
Transylvania 10-3
North Central (Ill.) 12-1
Washington U. 10-3
Illinois Wesleyan 10-3
Grinnell 9-2
Wheaton (Ill.) 10-3
St. Norbert 10-3
Carthage 4-6
Rose-Hulman 12-2
Carroll 11-3
Lakeland 11-1
Spalding 6-2
Marietta beat Capital on a 3 with :02 left at Capital 69-68. Both are now tied at 8-1 in the league. BW won to remain one back.
Capital now travels to BW on Saturday.
Hiram beat OWU in an Admiral Ackbar "IT'S A TRAP" special.
Quote from: smedindy on January 17, 2013, 07:55:28 AM
Hiram beat OWU in an Admiral Ackbar "IT'S A TRAP" special.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_rtOXMZlMTkg%2FS2CJrHAAiFI%2FAAAAAAAACkM%2FsZxpqVOkvHg%2Fs640%2FIts_A_Trap.png&hash=777384487b120baee1ef9dd8d6a84fd50b846639)
Interesting. I thought it would take a bit of time – and perhaps a win over Calvin – for Adrian to get back in the mix, but they might be “ranked” in the GL right now. I’d go:
1. Ohio Wesleyan (13-1)
2. Calvin (10-0)
3. Wooster (13-2)
4. Thomas More (13-2)
5. Wittenberg (9-3)
6. Adrian (8-3)
You could make a case for Marietta (12-4) or Capital (11-3) at #6, but Adrian is the only one of the three to have a win versus a regionally ranked team (Wooster).
Wittenberg and Thomas More could be flip-flopped if you prefer.
OWU #1 even with their loss against Hiram?
Quote from: smedindy on January 17, 2013, 10:20:53 AM
OWU #1 even with their loss against Hiram?
I would do it, yeah. They still have a win over Witt, and Calvin's still trying to get their SOS above .400(!). OWU-Wooster will be huge this weekend, winner takes the #1 spot.
Still waiting to do a full update after Saturday, but most of the heavy hitters have results in already.
Wooster beats Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram beats Wittenberg, and Baldwin Wallace beats Capital. Calvin, Adrian win. Thomas More was idle. Great Lakes Region might now look like this:
1. Calvin (11-0)
2. Wooster (14-2)
3. Ohio Wesleyan (13-2)
4. Thomas More (14-2)
5. Adrian (9-3)
6. Marietta (13-4)
Could make an argument for Calvin down to third, but I think the perfect in-region record and common opponent result with Wooster (beating Adrian) would bump them ahead of the NCAC pair.
St. Vincent, Capital, Baldwin Wallace, Wittenberg, and Hope would be the next few in the discussion. Of those, St. Vincent is probably the only one with an argument to make that they should be ranked right now -- could justify as high as #5.
Baldwin-Wallace beat Capital, Caps 2nd loss of the week
OAC standings
Marietta 8-1, 13-4
Capital 7-2, 11-6
B-W 7-2, 13-4
In case anyone didn't listen to the Hoopsville interview, BW will still be considered for regional ranking even though they've self-imposed a post-season ban.
NCAC
Wooster beat OWU in the showdown 88-82, OWU's 2nd loss of the week. Hiram beat Witt.
Wooster 8-0
OWU 6-2
Witt 5-3
Bethany lost to Waynesburg for their 2nd loss of the week.
I know that the NCAA only looks at their factors in the regional rankings (e.g. only the record against regional teams) but it is also interesting to look at how other national ranking systems stack up the Great Lakes teams. ;)
Here is the link to the current Massey ratings for Division III:
http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2013&sub=11620
Great Lakes teams in the Top 60 of the current Massey ratings as of 1/20:
#7 Wooster 15-2
#16 Calvin 15-2
#22 Ohio Wesleyan 13-3
#38 Baldwin-Wallace 13-4
#40 Marietta 13-4
#48 Adrian 14-3
#57 Capital 11-6
#58 Thomas More 15-3
Obviously, Massey looks at the total record and uses a different methodology.
One other factor that may help Wooster in the NCAA rankings is wins against regionally ranked opponents. Wooster has 3 such wins IF OWU, Baldwin-Wallace and Marietta are all ranked.
The last spot or two could be very interesting as we approach the first rankings in a couple of weeks. I still think it's
1. Calvin
2. Wooster
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Thomas More
as the solid top four, but after it gets a bit interesting with the OAC deciding it just wants to keep beating up on itself.
5. Adrian
6. St. Vincent
Adrian I think has snuck back in as the solid fifth team, but you could make a case for Marietta or Capital in the sixth spot. Probably not Capital so much since they lost head-to-head to Marietta. None of these three have beaten a "regionally ranked" team.
One of the OAC's will get ranked though, its almost a take your pick between Capital and Marietta. Neither has a great resume outside of what they've done in conference. Of course they play each other the day of the first rankings.
Thomas More has a pretty advantageous schedule to remain ranked, they play the 3 other PAC contenders in their last 3 games. Thiel, Bethany and St. Vincent. They should win their next 4.
Quote from: sac on January 24, 2013, 06:49:25 PM
One of the OAC's will get ranked though, its almost a take your pick between Capital and Marietta. Neither has a great resume outside of what they've done in conference. Of course they play each other the day of the first rankings.
Thomas More has a pretty advantageous schedule to remain ranked, they play the 3 other PAC contenders in their last 3 games. Thiel, Bethany and St. Vincent. They should win their next 4.
We're now at Capital with 4 losses and Marietta and Baldwin Wallace with 5 losses. Each of these could find themselves losing two or three more games.
KnightSlappy, I love your regional rankings - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
When do you plan to update next? At some point after this weekend's game I'd like to dig into the Midwest rankings a little. Your data is so helpful in that process. Thanks for doing this.
By the way, I think you might have IWU with one extra in-region win. D3hoops.com incorrectly (as far as I know) lists Mississippi College as in-region. I have IWU 12-3 now, after the Wednesday win over NCC...
http://www.iwuhoops.com/schedule12-13.html
Quote from: Titan Q on January 25, 2013, 10:31:28 AM
KnightSlappy, I love your regional rankings - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
When do you plan to update next? At some point after this weekend's game I'd like to dig into the Midwest rankings a little. Your data is so helpful in that process. Thanks for doing this.
By the way, I think you might have IWU with one extra in-region win. D3hoops.com incorrectly (as far as I know) lists Mississippi College as in-region. I have IWU 12-3 now, after the Wednesday win over NCC...
http://www.iwuhoops.com/schedule12-13.html
I like to update Monday, but mayhaps I can do it at lunch today just for kicks.
I have what D3hoops has, so it's incorrect for me too (though I can manually adjust if I remember after each update). Pat's really fast with fixing errors, so PM him about it.
I just went ahead and updated it. Will plan on another update on Monday.
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
Through Thursday 1/24/2013
Fixed.
Thanks to both of you!
OWU and Adrian lost, and Calvin, Wooster, Thomas More, St. Vincent, Capital, and Marietta all won.
1. Calvin (13-0)
2. Wooster (16-2)
--- a not-insignificant gap ---
3. Ohio Wesleyan (14-3)
4. Thomas More (15-2)
5. St. Vincent (12-3)
6. Pick one of Adrian (10-4), Marietta (14-5), and Capital (13-4) -- Marietta beat Capital head-to-head, but Marietta lost to Wooster who Adrian beat. So perhaps:
6a. Adrian
6b. Marietta
6c. Capital
6d? Baldwin Wallace would be next; they're really the only other team you could consider ranking at this point. They're 1-1 vs. Capital and 1-0 vs. Marietta, so they might actually be in the #6 mix as well. I say the OAC three are too convoluted to figure out, so give the spot to Adrian who's the only one of the four to have beaten one of the five teams above.
I believe the first set of rankings include games through Feb 3, so we're basically one week away from things becoming official. The race for the #6 spot will be interesting.
Adrian is @Hope and @Trine this week so if they go 2-0 they're pretty much getting ranked -- their already good SOS will take a good jump.
Still think the top five in the GL are (in order)
Calvin (14-0)
Wooster (17-2)
Ohio Wesleyan (15-3)
Thomas More (16-2)
St. Vincent (13-3)
But the sixth spot is a mess. Consider the following teams (winning percentage/SOS) sorted by WP:
Capital (.778/.507)
Marietta (.750/.489)
Baldwin Wallace (.737/.489)
Adrian (.667/.535)
Hope (.643/.570)
If you combine WP and SOS by standard RPI you get the following order: Hope, Capital, Adrian, Marietta, Baldwin Wallace.
If you combine WP and SOS in a 50-50 manner, you get: Capital, Marietta, Baldwin Wallace, Hope, Adrian.
I think the committee tends to look at winning percentage first, so that's why I listed them the way I did at the top. Looking at everything it seems like Capital is the best bet.
But not so fast my friend. Marietta is 1-0 versus Capital. But then Baldwin Wallace is 1-0 versus Marietta (and 1-1 versus Capital). But then Adrian beat Wooster and Baldwin Wallace and Marietta lost to Wooster. But then Hope is 2-0 versus Adrian.
I say after all this Capital gets it, but man, you could go round and round on that.
Why not just rank Fransican to see some heads asplode!!! ;)
I agree that Capital probably takes the sixth spot in today's rankings. They have the best WP of the bunch with a SOS over .500, that's typically where you want to be to avoid getting into the minutiae.
Assuming they take care of business against John Carroll, they probably lock down the sixth spot in the first rankings. Interesting that such a scenario probably sets up a battle for that very spot when they travel to Marietta the same evening the rankings are released. Win that and they might have a stranglehold on the sixth spot, lose and it could go to Marietta on the strength of a 2-0 head to head record.
Adrian's win over Wooster is a fading memory when combined with what they have done against other GL Region contenders. They still have a better in-region WP than Hope but I have to believe Hope's better SOS number combined with two wins over Adrian puts them ahead of the Bulldogs.
Quote from: ziggy on January 31, 2013, 12:33:53 PM
Adrian's win over Wooster is a fading memory when combined with what they have done against other GL Region contenders. They still have a better in-region WP than Hope but I have to believe Hope's better SOS number combined with two wins over Adrian puts them ahead of the Bulldogs.
But common opponents is a primary criterion, and Mike DeWitt mentioned that they're charged with considering all criteria equally.
I don't know that it means that they're
weighed equally against each other, but it's still a big factor. Capital is 0-1 versus teams expected to be regionally ranked, and Adrian is 1-2. That gives the Bulldogs the advantage over Capital in three of the five primary criteria (with the fifth, head to head, not applying in this case).
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)
Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)
Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.
Oh, right. I remember reading about this on the boards in previous years - since the criterion says "results" and not "wins" or "losses" or "winning percentage" etc. Thus, a 3-3 set of results might be seen more favorably (or at least equally) than an 2-0 because of the six data points vs. two. I guess it could be seen as a a way, perhaps, for the committee to reward programs that try to schedule strong competition (though surely some of that would be internalized by SOS).
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)
Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.
Oh, right. I remember reading about this on the boards in previous years - since the criterion says "results" and not "wins" or "losses" or "winning percentage" etc. Thus, a 3-3 set of results might be seen more favorably (or at least equally) than an 2-0 because of the six data points vs. two. I guess it could be seen as a a way, perhaps, for the committee to reward programs that try to schedule strong competition (though surely some of that would be internalized by SOS).
Yeah, in my opinion it's double counting the SOS component. And it's tough to penalize a team like Calvin, for instance, who scheduled in-region games versus Wabash and Anderson (usually strong programs) only to have those two teams tank compared to previous years.
But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2013, 02:51:18 PM
But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.
But is the bolded portion really true? It
might be true, but Team B could have the higher SOS. Then are you prepared to say the team with the higher SOS played less quality competition? If so, what's the point of SOS?
And even if one fully accepts that there is overlap between SOS and results vs. regionally ranked, why is SOS adjusted for home and way and RvRR is not?
I would prefer the NCAA use RvRR as a microscope to zoom in on games played against a higher level of competition than the rest of the schedule. Rather than using it to make a statement that includes conclusions covered by one of the other criterion, use it to simply ask, "when this team plays other regionally ranked teams, are they successful?" Team B gets a weak 'yes' (yes, but small sample size) while Team A gets a weak 'no' (better sample size but lost more than they won).
For starters... I did say "thus why there are many criteria and not just a few." The SOS is a consideration, but they also want to show teams who went above the SOS in some senses.
Listen... there are multiple criteria and focusing on just one or two as the be-all and end-all doesn't work... and next year it all changes again anyway!
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2013, 02:51:18 PM
But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.
But you don't really know that. They scheduled teams that ended up being ranked, but you don't know that Team A didn't try to do just the same, that's my point. By creating a home-and-home series with Anderson, playing Wabash, and being in a league with Hope, Calvin was scheduling teams that are no strangers to the regional rankings. Just happens that none of these four games will be marked as "versus regionally ranked" right now.
I'm not saying credit it to them, I just think this criterion is a bit silly.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.
I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?
Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.
And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)
Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.
Oh, right. I remember reading about this on the boards in previous years - since the criterion says "results" and not "wins" or "losses" or "winning percentage" etc. Thus, a 3-3 set of results might be seen more favorably (or at least equally) than an 2-0 because of the six data points vs. two. I guess it could be seen as a a way, perhaps, for the committee to reward programs that try to schedule strong competition (though surely some of that would be internalized by SOS).
Yeah, in my opinion it's double counting the SOS component. And it's tough to penalize a team like Calvin, for instance, who scheduled in-region games versus Wabash and Anderson (usually strong programs) only to have those two teams tank compared to previous years.
Ouch! It's a tough year...four senior starters graduated after 2011-2012 and pretty much all of Wabash's scoring went out with the class of '12 soooo....there was going to be a bit of a reboot this year. But it underscores the point you can't really purposefully "schedule up". Teams wind up with strong SOS's and RRO results as much by coincidence as anything else. At the end of the day, win 21 or so games and who was on your schedule won't really matter.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!
Want to win the MVP every year? Hit a home run every time you're at the plate and never make an error in field.
The reason for having the regionally ranked component is that it adds to the SOS... the SOS is made up of obviously more than your actual schedule which could inflate or deflate your SOS accordingly. Thus, if you have regionally ranked opponents on your schedule you have another benefit when it comes to your resume. It adds a bit more understanding maybe to that SOS and schedule. Furthermore, if you are 15-1 but only 1-0 against regionally ranked opponents, you can weight those accordingly.
As for scheduling... sh!t happens. As much as teams you thought would be good end up being duds, there is a team no one expected to be good but was scheduled to fill a spot and all of the sudden is an important part of the schedule. Also, you don't think coaches know what teams are comprised with for the future and whether they may have an off year (outside of rampant injuries) when they schedule home-and-homes? I promise you that many coaches are weighing whether a team will be good in a year or two based on the team they have now and realize they may run into an off year.
Finally, to rest Calvin's season on the fact that Wabash and Anderson were off this year (and to be honest, I didn't expect those teams to be stellar this year, so why should Calvin) is a lot to put on Calvin's schedule - in other words... two teams doesn't make or break a schedule.
Finlandia is the team killing Calvin's schedule strength.
record vs regionally ranked opponents is practically useless in a region that only ranks 6 teams.
But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region? Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ;)). [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region? Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ;)). [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]
I am aware of that and whoopdy do. The Great Lakes, Atlantic regions will have the fewest 'ranked' teams of every region. This is major advantage to the power conferences of the other regions that the GL power conferences really don't get to enjoy.
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2013, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region? Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ;)). [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]
I am aware of that and whoopdy do. The Great Lakes, Atlantic regions will have the fewest 'ranked' teams of every region. This is major advantage to the power conferences of the other regions that the GL power conferences really don't get to enjoy.
They will have the same
proportion of ranked teams as every other region. The problem, of course, is that the size of regions is no where near balanced.
Other regions' rankings count... and regional realignment is coming to hopefully offset many of the issues with region unbalance.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2013, 06:33:42 PM
Other regions' rankings count... and regional realignment is coming to hopefully offset many of the issues with region unbalance.
Which kind of underscores the silliness of regionality in the first place. Why count RROs from different regions but not use those teams' records in the SOS metric? KS calls it double dipping, which it is, but if the result counts then it should count all the way around. They need to count all D3 games and wipe out the silly "what is a regional game" rules (which I think they're doing maybe starting next year, right?).
There are a lot of ways to interpret the "results vs. RROs" which I think muddles the at-large process. Bubble teams, all of them, are on the bubble precisely because they have proven that they can lose games. They all lost games along the way that they shouldn't have or they wouldn't be on the bubble. I'd like to see the committee put a giant emphasis on examining who teams beat. Did they beat RROs? Did they beat other teams already qualified for the tournament? Again, I know you can lose otherwise you wouldn't be on the bubble. I want to know if you can beat tournament caliber teams. If yes, then you probably make the field better.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!
Want to win the MVP every year? Hit a home run every time you're at the plate and never make an error in field.
What? Win your league and you don't have to worry about the committee. Simple as that.
Of course, it would be best if there weren't conference tourneys, but still, how hard is that. Take any doubt out of the committee's hands. Else, you have NO excuses.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region? Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ;)). [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]
No, this is not the case. The criteria list is:
* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
* Strength of schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
* In-region head-to-head competition.
* In-region results versus common regional opponents.
*
In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.The game has to be "in-region" to be used for RRO. So Transylvania's (Midwest) win over Wooster (Great Lakes) would count, but not Wheaton's (Midwest) over Calvin (Great Lakes).
Last year IWU was helped by two out-of-region wins over teams ranked in other regions - Bethany and Staten Island - but that was in the "secondary criteria." Those games did not show up in IWU's RRO calculation.
http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 31, 2013, 02:01:34 PM
Oh, right. I remember reading about this on the boards in previous years - since the criterion says "results" and not "wins" or "losses" or "winning percentage" etc. Thus, a 3-3 set of results might be seen more favorably (or at least equally) than an 2-0 because of the six data points vs. two.
Yes, on this topic I think it was Pat Coleman who once posted --
"Tis better to have played and lost than never to have played at all."
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2013, 06:31:18 PM
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2013, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region? Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ;)). [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]
I am aware of that and whoopdy do. The Great Lakes, Atlantic regions will have the fewest 'ranked' teams of every region. This is major advantage to the power conferences of the other regions that the GL power conferences really don't get to enjoy.
They will have the same proportion of ranked teams as every other region. The problem, of course, is that the size of regions is no where near balanced.
The imbalance comes from the power conferences such as the CCIW, WIAC etc having the opportunity to have their 3rd and 4th place teams be ranked at some point. That is much less likely to happen for the MIAA, OAC or NCAC in such a small region.
......in the end, no the proportions won't be the same.
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2013, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!
Want to win the MVP every year? Hit a home run every time you're at the plate and never make an error in field.
What? Win your league and you don't have to worry about the committee. Simple as that.
Right, but it's not realistic that every deserving team wins their AQ. And beside, this discussion also is about seeding and hosting once you're in.
Deserving is in the eyes of the beholder. The power conferences can't have all the cake.
No one will ever ever ever be satisfied with any algorithm for seeding or hosting. I prefer national SOS and national rankings of course, using neutral measures that incorporate other factors than just straight up W/L. But you take baby steps.
My Midwest projection...
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4592.32160
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2013, 04:54:03 PM
Finally, to rest Calvin's season on the fact that Wabash and Anderson were off this year (and to be honest, I didn't expect those teams to be stellar this year, so why should Calvin) is a lot to put on Calvin's schedule - in other words... two teams doesn't make or break a schedule.
What is the list of teams that Calvin should have scheduled. If we're looking for them to go out and schedule games versus regionally ranked opponents. When KVS was beginning to fill out his 2012-13 schedule 18 months ago, what in-region teams should have he expected to be ranked?
I'll start the list with Wooster. Are there really any more teams? Do we even want to include ODAC teams in this?
Again, not trying to complain about Calvin -- I accept where they are and do agree they need to schedule better in-region game -- just trying to use them as an example to show how silly the "versus regionally ranked" component is if we're trying to see if teams are "making an attempt to schedule tough games" or "go above and beyond".
Which team played more games versus regionally ranked: the team with the .450 SOS or the .550 SOS? What are we really adding by using this criterion?
You should never forecast regional rankings. I realize Calvin's in a tough spot since most of the CCIW is out of region, and even though the HCAC and NCAC are in region getting some teams up to Grand Rapids isn't easy. But, they could stop scheduling the NAIA and concentrate of D-3 schools. Just my nickel...
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2013, 05:58:48 PM
Finlandia is the team killing Calvin's schedule strength.
Actually the home games versus Anderson, North Park, and Albion are all worse from an SOS component standpoint. If they replaced those three games with @Finlandia their SOS would improve by .015.
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2013, 11:23:00 AM
You should never forecast regional rankings. I realize Calvin's in a tough spot since most of the CCIW is out of region, and even though the HCAC and NCAC are in region getting some teams up to Grand Rapids isn't easy. But, they could stop scheduling the NAIA and concentrate of D-3 schools. Just my nickel...
I don't disagree, but they only played three games versus non-D3's this year. That's not a ton considering there is only one non-conference D3 that is in-state, Finlandia, and they're actually over 500 miles away.
It will get better next year when all D3's count the same, so long as they don't have trouble getting to the 75% in-region mark.
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2013, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2013, 05:58:48 PM
Finlandia is the team killing Calvin's schedule strength.
Actually the home games versus Anderson, North Park, and Albion are all worse from an SOS component standpoint. If they replaced those three games with @Finlandia their SOS would improve by .015.
and that is just crazy
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
What's wrong with traveling if a program has the means and desire to do so? Doesn't interregional play help give us some points of reference when trying to flesh out a field for a national tournament?
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
What's wrong with traveling if a program has the means and desire to do so? Doesn't interregional play help give us some points of reference when trying to flesh out a field for a national tournament?
This is a perfect time to point out that Hope and Calvin can play at Mississippi College for an in-region game but not the western suburbs of Chicago...
It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense.
However, uber regionality helps the NESCAC as they can fatten up on the good teams from sub-par conferences and increase their SOS by not really increasing their true strength-of-schedule at all.
Quote from: ziggy on February 01, 2013, 01:02:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
What's wrong with traveling if a program has the means and desire to do so? Doesn't interregional play help give us some points of reference when trying to flesh out a field for a national tournament?
This is a perfect time to point out that Hope and Calvin can play at Mississippi College for an in-region game but not the western suburbs of Chicago...
It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense.
Talk to the college presidents... they control the ship.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:58:58 PM
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
I would be surprised if that happened. We've seen some realignment (specifically of teams out of the SCAC being the primary example) so that schools aren't spending a fortune on travel just to do it. I think some schools will splurge occasionally, or maybe even annually, for a holiday trip to wherever might be fun (Vegas, SoCal, Bahamas, Crawfordsville, etc.). For the most part, I think regional play is self-fulfilling. Division III athletics departments aren't going to blow through a ton of cash and sacrifice a bunch of class days to send their hoops team on a November-December tour of the country to play non-league games...there's no margin in it.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 01:17:13 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:58:58 PM
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
I would be surprised if that happened. We've seen some realignment (specifically of teams out of the SCAC being the primary example) so that schools aren't spending a fortune on travel just to do it. I think some schools will splurge occasionally, or maybe even annually, for a holiday trip to wherever might be fun (Vegas, SoCal, Bahamas, Crawfordsville, etc.). For the most part, I think regional play is self-fulfilling. Division III athletics departments aren't going to blow through a ton of cash and sacrifice a bunch of class days to send their hoops team on a November-December tour of the country to play non-league games...there's no margin in it.
In some cases schools that travel do so not just because they can afford to do so. It can be made necessary by 1) Quality in region opponents won't schedule you which can be the case of the so-called power conferences, 2) Scheduling the toughest competition you can find even when it may mean the game is not 'in-region' in order to get ready for power conference opponents
However, in some cases there is a margin in traveling playing non-league games which is usually for recruitment when an school draws from a national rather than a local geographic base - UAA as one example.
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 01, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
1) Quality in region opponents won't schedule you which can be the case of the so-called power conferences
I know that this happens in football, but it makes sense. One game is 10% of your profile and losing that one non-league game, plus whatever league game you lost that landed you in Pool C means that you're probably not getting in. The risk of playing a super good team far outweighs the reward of maybe beating them in September. Different story in hoops. You've got 25 games to build a profile and there's way less risk in taking that game against a good in-region team. Are there basketball teams out there that absolutely can't find anyone to pick up the phone when they call to try and schedule a game?
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 01, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
2) Scheduling the toughest competition you can find even when it may mean the game is not 'in-region' in order to get ready for power conference opponents
Again, I don't think athletic departments are going to sending their basketball teams on a barnstorming tour of the country in November and December to play strong teams. Also, as was noted earlier, you can't possibly know with a ton of certainty that the game across the country that you scheduled to play last year is going to match the expectation of quality. At least not certain enough to sink the funds into those kinds of trips.
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 01, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
However, in some cases there is a margin in traveling playing non-league games which is usually for recruitment when an school draws from a national rather than a local geographic base - UAA as one example.
Understood about the UAA, but they're kind of their own special subset within D-III. For the most part, D-III schools are clustered in groups of like-minded institutions with geographic proximity.
I guess the question I'm having is this: is there a giant group of D-III hoops programs out there are silently grumbling that they are being handcuffed by regionality and would stick their teams on planes and send them all over the country for single non-league games if only the rules were more forgiving? Maybe there is, I don't know.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 01, 2013, 01:02:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
What's wrong with traveling if a program has the means and desire to do so? Doesn't interregional play help give us some points of reference when trying to flesh out a field for a national tournament?
This is a perfect time to point out that Hope and Calvin can play at Mississippi College for an in-region game but not the western suburbs of Chicago...
It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense.
Talk to the college presidents... they control the ship.
Dave, I don't think the beef is with Division III philosophy (which the college presidents set). It's with the administration of the philosophy. As said above...
"It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense."Today, Wheaton can travel 2000 miles to L.A. to play an in-region game vs Occidental...but a game at Calvin (203 miles away) is out-of-region.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:58:58 PM
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
I don't think this actually happens, Dave.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2013, 03:54:02 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:58:58 PM
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
I don't think this actually happens, Dave.
Anything is possible in a world where Calvin and Elmhurst can suddenly grow an extra 2 miles apart in just a couple years to suddenly go from in-region to out-of-region.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 03:16:31 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 01, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
1) Quality in region opponents won't schedule you which can be the case of the so-called power conferences
I know that this happens in football, but it makes sense. One game is 10% of your profile and losing that one non-league game, plus whatever league game you lost that landed you in Pool C means that you're probably not getting in. The risk of playing a super good team far outweighs the reward of maybe beating them in September. Different story in hoops. You've got 25 games to build a profile and there's way less risk in taking that game against a good in-region team. Are there basketball teams out there that absolutely can't find anyone to pick up the phone when they call to try and schedule a game?
MIAA teams have a two or three weekend period in December when no D3 schools within 350 miles are available (except CCIW's) because conference play has started for those other schools.
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2013, 01:02:46 PM
However, uber regionality helps the NESCAC as they can fatten up on the good teams from sub-par conferences and increase their SOS by not really increasing their true strength-of-schedule at all.
Have you seen the SOSs of the NESCAC lately?
Wesleyan 119, Wiliams 134, Tufts 146, Hamilton 180 and Amherst at 185 none of them played a 19-0 WPI team which has a SOS of 256.
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 06:03:53 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 03:16:31 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 01, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
1) Quality in region opponents won't schedule you which can be the case of the so-called power conferences
I know that this happens in football, but it makes sense. One game is 10% of your profile and losing that one non-league game, plus whatever league game you lost that landed you in Pool C means that you're probably not getting in. The risk of playing a super good team far outweighs the reward of maybe beating them in September. Different story in hoops. You've got 25 games to build a profile and there's way less risk in taking that game against a good in-region team. Are there basketball teams out there that absolutely can't find anyone to pick up the phone when they call to try and schedule a game?
MIAA teams have a two or three weekend period in December when no D3 schools within 350 miles are available (except CCIW's) because conference play has started for those other schools.
And, to follow up, top power conference teams are not looking for just anyone. I don't want to play cupcakes. Examples citied by TitanQ and SAC above are good ones. And, to answer your question - Yes on occasion.
Will the top power conference teams not play a good team that could beat them, like the D-1 power conferences avoid teams like Creighton and VCU?
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2013, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 01, 2013, 01:02:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 01, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
The percentage is actually 70% in region games - I wish it was 75... but it is 70.
25 x .7 = 17.5 rounded up to 18
25 x .75 = 18.5 rounded up to 19
because that 1 game makes all the difference?
There are more sports than basketball... and I think that one game will keep teams from being more travel crazy. I also wanted it more than 75%... so like 20 games.
What's wrong with traveling if a program has the means and desire to do so? Doesn't interregional play help give us some points of reference when trying to flesh out a field for a national tournament?
This is a perfect time to point out that Hope and Calvin can play at Mississippi College for an in-region game but not the western suburbs of Chicago...
It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense.
Talk to the college presidents... they control the ship.
Dave, I don't think the beef is with Division III philosophy (which the college presidents set). It's with the administration of the philosophy. As said above...
"It all goes back to the philosophy of Division III, which is solid. They've just managed to bumble the way the philosophy is carried out with a set of rules that don't always make sense."
Today, Wheaton can travel 2000 miles to L.A. to play an in-region game vs Occidental...but a game at Calvin (203 miles away) is out-of-region.
Well the Presidents do have a role in this... and to be honest there is nothing you can do about your example. You have to draw the line somewhere and the regions and the administrative regions have existed for a very long time. Plus, remember this is about more than just basketball - it has to do with all of the NCAA sports. That being said, look for regional realignment to be the big topic of conversation in the off-season.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2013, 03:54:02 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2013, 12:58:58 PM
I worry that the schools that can afford to play where ever they want will do so... basically ignoring the teams in their backyards who can't afford the travel... and thus setting up scenarios where some schools can't fill their schedules with quality opponents because those quality opponents are more interested in spending their money to travel out of the region.
I don't think this actually happens, Dave.
From the Midwest point of view, probably not. However, I know a number of schools in the Northeast who travel already and will certainly welcome the fact that travel will not restrict them. I am not worried that CCIW teams and the like will leave the region to play games. I am worried that teams like Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, and they kind will do so leaving many in their regions holding the bag. It may not happen often, but I have already seen small signs of it in the last few years. Remember, these schools pull from across the country and they use their athletics as a recruiting tool for more than just their teams... they want to keep their name out in the conversation across the country.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
Well the Presidents do have a role in this... and to be honest there is nothing you can do about your example. You have to draw the line somewhere and the regions and the administrative regions have existed for a very long time. Plus, remember this is about more than just basketball - it has to do with all of the NCAA sports. That being said, look for regional realignment to be the big topic of conversation in the off-season.
If the goal of regional re-alignment is really to "even up" the numbers in the regions, then the GL won't really see any change. The obvious move is to send the WIAC to the MW and the HCAC to the GL. Presto, the regions are even, but I don't know that it has any impact on what is or isn't a regional game for any team.
I wrote this in August: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-second-thought-regional-realignment.html
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
Will the top power conference teams not play a good team that could beat them, like the D-1 power conferences avoid teams like Creighton and VCU?
Sometimes - yes. I think it is more the case that teams, in a rebuilding mode, will avoid playing a top power conference team because the coach with the rebuilding team does not want to get blown out.
Wooster falls at Wabash, 48-55. Credit the Little Giants with the big upset win.
My assumption is that barring Calvin also losing, the Scots probably have given up their chances at being #1 in the Great Lakes in the initial rankings next week.
Calvin won 92-50 with Jordan Brink in street clothes.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2013, 11:00:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
Well the Presidents do have a role in this... and to be honest there is nothing you can do about your example. You have to draw the line somewhere and the regions and the administrative regions have existed for a very long time. Plus, remember this is about more than just basketball - it has to do with all of the NCAA sports. That being said, look for regional realignment to be the big topic of conversation in the off-season.
If the goal of regional re-alignment is really to "even up" the numbers in the regions, then the GL won't really see any change. The obvious move is to send the WIAC to the MW and the HCAC to the GL. Presto, the regions are even, but I don't know that it has any impact on what is or isn't a regional game for any team.
I wrote this in August: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-second-thought-regional-realignment.html
That certainly makes plenty of sense and would help be more even with the women's regions (and there would be a name change for the Midwest or the Central to make it consistent). The bigger issue(s) is the Northeast, East, and Atlantic. The Northeast has 75 mens teams... the East and Atlantic MIGHT equal 75 combined (don't know off the top of my head).
There are also other issues like conferences split in different regions (which I don't have an issue with, but apparently Presidents do have an issue with) and the regions in other sports are just not working (i.e. lacrosse with just a North and South).
I am not sure what the answers will be, but it won't be perfect... but small things to make improvements would be nice.
Marietta 92 Heidelberg 89 2OT
game of the day in the region. H'berg hit a 3 with 11 seconds left to send it to OT, Marietta hit a 3 with 10 seconds left to send it to 2OT.
http://www.oac.org/sports/mbkb/2012-13/boxscores/20130202_v9r5.xml?view=plays
Capital at Marietta next Wed for the outright lead in the OAC
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 02, 2013, 03:55:10 PM
Wooster falls at Wabash, 48-55. Credit the Little Giants with the big upset win.
My assumption is that barring Calvin also losing, the Scots probably have given up their chances at being #1 in the Great Lakes in the initial rankings next week.
I saw Wabash way back in the first weekend of the season beat Albion by 1 on a late basket. I find this result very hard to believe even with taking team improvement over 3 months into consideration.
Give Wabash credit though they've beaten DePauw and Wooster in back-to-back games, no one probably saw that coming.
Calvin is much further out in front than people realize and is, imo, very underrated in the National Poll.
The fuzzy cheeked youngsters have finally learned that defense wins.
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2013, 11:50:57 PM
Calvin is much further out in front than people realize and is, imo, very underrated in the National Poll.
Massey has Calvin at #9 -- whatever that means -- and WI Stevens Pt. was ranked higher and lost their last two games -- 3rd and 4th losses of the season (maybe that has already been factored in....).
I don't think there's any doubt that Calvin's defense over the past several weeks is night and day different than the defense that Calvin showed in their only two losses earlier in the season. Calvin is certainly playing improved offense and defense that at times makes me think they should be ranked higher. On the other hand, I doubt there's a team in the top 30 that can't look extremely good at times. And, unfortunately, I think Calvin has not really been tested much.... It's really too bad that they haven't played a couple more really tough games.
Regional rankings come out today?
Yep... D3hoops will tweet and such when they are released.
A man can only hit 'refresh' so many times
ziggy noticed that the data sheets are live at the bottom of the NCAA's rankings page. It appears they have neglected to count the Hope-Covenant game as in-region.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
ziggy noticed that the data sheets are live at the bottom of the NCAA's rankings page. It appears they have neglected to count the Hope-Covenant game as in-region.
Link?
Quote from: calvinite on February 06, 2013, 07:20:36 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
ziggy noticed that the data sheets are live at the bottom of the NCAA's rankings page. It appears they have neglected to count the Hope-Covenant game as in-region.
Link?
http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB®ion=30&division=3
Or more appropriately: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/)
You are all welcome to listen to the hoopsville interview with national chair Mike DeWitt, particularly his thoughts on what matters most in rankings. Starts at about 25 minutes, the most pertinent part is at the 30 minute mark and especially again at about 35 minutes.
http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/jan17
I have total faith in a system that thinks a 3 loss team should be ranked 3 spots higher than a 0 loss team who is 3-0 vs 1-2 against common opponents ::)
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
I guess Thomas More should be thankful their loss to Miami-Middletown doesn't count against them, which it would have back in the days of smoke filled rooms and common sense. Miami-Middletown 19-6, play in the Ohio Regional Campus League. Not even affiliated with anyone.
Calvin has zero losses against a schedule others feel is weak.
Thomas More has 2 losses, one of them to Washington and Jefferson, 8-15 on the season. Here's Calvin's two scores against 8-14 Alma 86-63, 90-66, against 6-16 North Park 83-54, against 9-13 Anderson 98-56, against 7-15 Wabash 83-56, I'll even throw 12-9 Ripon in with these guys 87-62.
.......not even challenged.
Freshly ranked #6 Marietta went down 70-67 to Capital last night in Marietta.
so to recap
at Capital......Marietta 69 Capital 68
at Marietta....Capital 70 Marietta 67 OT
This gives Capital a one game lead in the OAC standings over Marietta and BW. The schedule is pretty favorable to Capital
Capital @Otterbein, Muskingum, Ohio Northern
Marietta Bald-Wallace, @ Mt.Union, @ John Carroll
Bald-Wall @ Marietta, Heidelberg, Muskingum
Regardless of the BW/Mar outcome, Marietta will be no worse than the two seed in the OAC tournament. The rest is a mess.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
You are all welcome to listen to the hoopsville interview with national chair Mike DeWitt, particularly his thoughts on what matters most in rankings. Starts at about 25 minutes, the most pertinent part is at the 30 minute mark and especially again at about 35 minutes.
http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/jan17
I have total faith in a system that thinks a 3 loss team should be ranked 3 spots higher than a 0 loss team who is 3-0 vs 1-2 against common opponents ::)
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
This is why coaches/committee members revert to coachspeak. Because we hold their candor against them. (Not to pick on you, I'm also self-reflecting here).
Starting lineups for Thomas More and Calvin........yeah this would go well ::)
Thomas More
DeCarlo Hayes 5-11
Spencer Berlecamp 6-0
Drew Mumford 6-2
Brandon Housley 6-2
Joseph Marshall 6-1
Bench: 5-8, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4
Calvin
David Rietema 6-1
Jordan Brink 6-3
Tom Snikkers 6-4
Tyler Dykstra 6-8
Tyler Kruis 6-9
Bench 6-1, 6-7, 6-4, 6-9, 6-4
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
Considering that it's pretty clear that not just
wins vs regionally ranked teams are significant, but
games played, think of how much of an advantage this is for the UAA. If you are one of those 5 ranked UAA teams (across 4 regions) you are now guaranteed to have 8 games played vs regionally ranked in your ledger on selection day. Down at the end of the Pool C bubble (say spots 15-19), where things like winning % and OWP are sort of a push, that's just a huge advantage.
The CCIW has four ranked in the Midwest (and did last year as well), and I'm sure the WIAC and ODAC have had 4 ranked in the West and South respectively over the years...and others too. But I can't imagine in a league where all of the teams are in the same region (95% of D3 leagues?) - that 5 different teams would get regionally ranked.
I also know the UAA is great this year - maybe the best league. But this is definitely an advantage for them.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 07, 2013, 09:25:08 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
Considering that it's pretty clear that not just wins vs regionally ranked teams are significant, but games played, think of how much of an advantage this is for the UAA. If you are one of those 5 ranked UAA teams (across 4 regions) you are now guaranteed to have 8 games played vs regionally ranked in your ledger on selection day. Down at the end of the Pool C bubble (say spots 15-19), where things like winning % and OWP are sort of a push, that's just a huge advantage.
The CCIW has four ranked in the Midwest (and did last year as well), and I'm sure the WIAC and ODAC have had 4 ranked in the West and South respectively over the years...and others too. But I can't imagine in a league where all of the teams are in the same region (95% of D3 leagues?) - that 5 different teams would get regionally ranked.
I also know the UAA is great this year - maybe the best league. But this is definitely an advantage for them.
Is the regional ranking format going to change next year when all D3 games "count" the same?
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 09:20:12 AM
Starting lineups for Thomas More and Calvin........yeah this would go well ::)
Thomas More
DeCarlo Hayes 5-11
Spencer Berlecamp 6-0
Drew Mumford 6-2
Brandon Housley 6-2
Joseph Marshall 6-1
Bench: 5-8, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4
Calvin
David Rietema 6-1
Jordan Brink 6-3
Tom Snikkers 6-4
Tyler Dykstra 6-8
Tyler Kruis 6-9
Bench 6-1, 6-7, 6-4, 6-9, 6-4
Please. Things could happen. Good little men beat good big men at times.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 02:03:36 AM
I guess Thomas More should be thankful their loss to Miami-Middletown doesn't count against them, which it would have back in the days of smoke filled rooms and common sense. Miami-Middletown 19-6, play in the Ohio Regional Campus League. Not even affiliated with anyone.
Calvin has zero losses against a schedule others feel is weak.
There wasn't a lot of 'common sense' in those rooms, sir. There was favoritism and back slapping and quid pro quo. The opposite of common sense.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
It looks like the regional reporting forms which break down SOS regional record etc... that are linked on the D3 regional rankings page is from 2012. Anyone of a link to the current ones?
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
I, for one, would prefer the reverse!
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.
Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.
All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.
What's the alternative? Force teams into leagues where they have nothing in common with any of the teams there?
A case could be made for C-M and Case in the NCAC academically and athletically. But where does Wash U. fit in? Chicago in the CCIW? Emory? The days of the independent are long gone...
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:47 AM
Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.
All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...
Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:32:26 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.
What's the alternative? Force teams into leagues where they have nothing in common with any of the teams there?
A case could be made for C-M and Case in the NCAC academically and athletically. But where does Wash U. fit in? Chicago in the CCIW? Emory? The days of the independent are long gone...
Not at all. The UAA is an idiosyncracy I am willing to live with but it does present a unique set of circumstances in terms of setting up opportunities for their league members to rack up more games against regionally ranked opponents than would otherwise be typical.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:47 AM
Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.
All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...
Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.
Yeah, the conference tourney conundrum.
Me, I wish the actual league winner got the bid and conference tourneys went away in D-3. They're a money grab and ESPN programming for D-1, but in D-3? Not as such...
Per next year... I don't think regional criteria will change despite all games count (as long as a team plays 70% of their games in region). It will give coaches more data to understand and more games to figure out. It will also force coaches to get a better understanding of more than their team, conference, or region - I will admit, I get frustrated with coaches when I ask them about just their region and they flat out say they don't care about anything outside of their conference. While I understand that in the basic sense of it, not understanding the scope of things in your region or even the country isn't helping your team in the long run.
As for the UAA argument... that could be one of the reasons driving school presidents to want their conferences all in one region when talking about regional realignment. However, this is also the biggest thing, in my opinion, that is making the process more complicated (not counting dealing with all sports on this issue). Believe it or not, there are several conferences besides the UAA in more than one region: Landmark, AMCC, NEAC, both MACs and I think there are one or two others I can't remember off the top of my head. Certainly the UAA is a much bigger scale in terms of regions, but honestly there is nothing you can do about this. The UAA was formed a long time ago and there is no solution that will work to isolate them a bit more.
Let's also keep one more thing in mind... if NYU gets on the board during Pool C consideration... they could just sit there the entire time and not get picked. Just because a team is in the regional rankings doesn't mean they are in position to assuredly get into the tournament. Now, I could see someone arguing that they could block a team behind them from getting in. This isn't going to happen either because if the team behind them deserves to be in the tournament more than an UAA team ahead of them... they should have been ranked ahead of that UAA team accordingly.
Also, using NYU or being concerned about them in the East Region is a waste of time. The East Region is weak and that is clearly shown by the fact that NYU is fourth out of just 6 teams that can be ranked. Sure, they get an SOS boost because of their conference and that allows them to be ranked a little easier than if the UAA was all in one region, but we know the teams behind them (Hobart, Geneseo, and others) are not getting into the tournament unless it is via the automatic bid.
And finally, when was the last time the UAA got, say, three teams in the tournament? I can only find the years 2007 and 2008 dating back to just this century when this has happened and both times it was the Midwest Region that produced the extra bids for the UAA (Wash U and Chicago).
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:47 AM
Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.
All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...
Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.
Yeah, the conference tourney conundrum.
Me, I wish the actual league winner got the bid and conference tourneys went away in D-3. They're a money grab and ESPN programming for D-1, but in D-3? Not as such...
Some conferences probably do generate revenue from the tournament (MIAA for one), but with so few at-large bids available, upsets are to the detriment of the quality of the D3 tournament.
Regular season champions getting the AQ (and Pool C's going to the most deserving non-AQ's) would certainly make for a better national tournament.
Though the coaches that tell me they want a tournament for their teams and players at the end of the season outweighs any coach who says he wants the regular season champ to get the AQ maybe 10:1.
Non-UAA fans in the Midwest would be right to be concerned about NYU getting ranked in the weak East region. Those are two more games against a regionally ranked opponent for a school like Wash U, and that has an impact on every team fighting with them in the MW.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2013, 10:52:41 AM
Though the coaches that tell me they want a tournament for their teams and players at the end of the season outweighs any coach who says he wants the regular season champ to get the AQ maybe 10:1.
Selection bias, of course. Removing the coaches of teams that have little to no chance of winning an outright league title would have a significant impact on that ratio, I presume.
No... a lot of coaches that are at the top of the leagues also like the tournaments.
A reason for that may be that you can't always count on being at the top of the standings every year.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2013, 11:13:34 AM
No... a lot of coaches that are at the top of the leagues also like the tournaments.
I still think that's pretty self-serving, though. Coaches will always back something that can give them any edge. I'm sure that Witt and OWU are very much in favor of an NCAC tourney now and evermore.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2013, 11:13:34 AM
No... a lot of coaches that are at the top of the leagues also like the tournaments.
I'm sure the UWSP, St. Thomas, Woosters would be more in favor -- in general -- in favor of regular season champs getting the AQ's than the Albions and Hirams would be.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2013, 11:15:04 AM
A reason for that may be that you can't always count on being at the top of the standings every year.
But, even if they don't win the AQ, Stevens Point, Whitewater, Illinois Wesleyan, Calvin, and Hope (for examples) stand a better chance of not getting knocked off of the Pool C bubble than they would when tournament upsets are a big possibility.
And I bet it changes from year to year, too. This year, Albertus Magnus would probably not want a tourney in the GNAC.
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
Non-UAA fans in the Midwest would be right to be concerned about NYU getting ranked in the weak East region. Those are two more games against a regionally ranked opponent for a school like Wash U, and that has an impact on every team fighting with them in the MW.
Right. This is the advantage I was primarily referring to. Those extra "results vs regionally ranked" for Wash U when evaluated vs the Midwest, or Brandeis vs the Northeast, etc. can really have an impact on how teams are stacked up in the region.
I've always been anti-conference tournament just for philosophical reasons. I think they're fun, but I just believe that the team that grinds out a title over the course of two hard months deserves the AQ. The other teams can let their resumes speak for themselves on selection day.
A few of the A.Ds and coaches in the CCIW feel the same way...but after 7 years now I don't see the league reversing course.
Oh I'm so glad we brought up the scourge that is league tournaments. I was thinking about this the other day and figured that there are about three possible outcomes of a league tournament.
1- Your regular season champion wins and all is right with the world. Or is it? Let's say your regular season champion wins but you've got a 2nd or 3rd place team that sits precariously on the bubble. Time for some math. Maybe that team gets upset in the first round. That team's win% takes a hit, probably takes an SOS hit, and is now out of the NCAAs because they played a game that never had to happen. Their win% is going to take a hit no matter what (even 2-1 in tournament play hurts you). Also, pretty much any first round game for a team seed 2nd or 3rd in a league tournament will hurt the SOS. End result: the team that should have qualified did, another team that had a good chance to qualify is out because they had a bad game or caught a hot team or had to play teams that hurt their SOS profile.
2- Your runner up wins. So you've taken a team that was probably on the bubble and put them in the tournament, but now your league's best team is in the at large pool and may get knocked out entirely if scenario 2 or 3 happens enough times, which is entirely possible. Additionally, if your league champion goes 1-1 or 2-1 in the league tournament, they've probably taken a win% hit, which hurts their at-large profile...whcih of course never had to happen if we could all agree that league tournaments are silly.
3- Cinderella wins. Worst case scenario. Yes, Cinderella is a fun story. Cinderella also keeps, potentially, a really really good team out of the tournament. We have to remember that the Division III tournament is way more exclusive than the the Division I tournament is, so it is a bigger hit to the overall quality of the field when the plucky, hot-for-a-weekend 14-12 team wins a league tournament and gets a spot in the field. So you've damaged the quality of the field. You've also put your league champion at risk of not making the field and you've almost certainly wiped out any shot your league runner up may have had (again, those teams either had to go 0-1. 1-1, or 2-1, any of which damage the win% and thus your chances of being selected).
Nothing good happens in league tournaments. People don't make money (for the most part) and we wind up putting WAY too much emphasis on those one or two games and forget about games that happened in November and December (those games count too...at least they should). I'd much rather see leagues forgo the conference tournaments and play 2-3 more non-league games. I think that's far more beneficial.
Here are the teams that could really screw up the GL region if they win their conference tourney (and these are teams that do have a shot at it, unlike, say wishcasting that Oberlin makes the NCAC tourney and runs the table...)
1. Trine
2. Adrian
3. Hope
4. Wittenberg
5. Bethany
I don't think anyone except the winner of the OAC and AMCC are going to go to the field. If the favorites lose in those tourneys, they're probably done. If one of the above teams win, the league winner probably goes and that's a squeeze on the rest of the region. (OWU may fall out if Witt wins the NCAC, for instance...and if another MIAA team save Calvin wins that league it may domino so that OWU or St. Vincent are knocked out as well.)
Of course, it's early...ish.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:32:26 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.
How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.
I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.
But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.
I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.
What's the alternative? Force teams into leagues where they have nothing in common with any of the teams there?
A case could be made for C-M and Case in the NCAC academically and athletically. But where does Wash U. fit in? Chicago in the CCIW? Emory? The days of the independent are long gone...
None of those schools are a good fit in the places that you mention. The UAA schools are elite, mid-sized research universities; the NCAC and the CCIW are made up of small liberal arts colleges, very good academically but not really in the same realm when it comes to graduate programs, federal research dollars, publish-or-perish, etc.
Chicago would be a terrible fit for the CCIW. Prior to the advent of the UAA, Chicago was in the MWC ... and it was a terrible fit there, too. In fact, the reverse is true; rather than looking at how one could possibly shoehorn the UAA institutions into adjacent leagues made up of small liberal arts colleges, perhaps the UAA should look into wooing some of its sister institutions that stick out like sore thumbs in their current small-liberal-arts-colleges leagues, such as MIT in the NEWMAC, Johns Hopkins in the Centennial (and, yeah, I know that Johns Hopkins used to be an associate member of the UAA), and Caltech in the SCIAC. Those schools are elephants grazing on the savannah amongst herds of antelopes.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 10:29:47 AM
Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.
All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...
Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.
Yeah, the conference tourney conundrum.
Me, I wish the actual league winner got the bid and conference tourneys went away in D-3. They're a money grab and ESPN programming for D-1, but in D-3? Not as such...
I hate 'em, too. But the NCAA can't make 'em go away. Each league still gets to determine how it chooses to assign its one automatic bid to the tourney, and in D3 only the UAA opts to give it to the regular-season champion. That's part of the NCAA's focus upon self-governance among leagues and individual schools.
Greg, agree on MIT and Johns Hopkins, but Caltech can't even compete in the SCIAC! They would be absolutely routed in every game in the UAA.
Not that I am defending CalTech, but I do get a serious sense that their programs are improving so you never know what the future holds (i.e. MIT).
And I know there has been scuttlebutt around these parts on whether Johns Hopkins would bolt back to the UAA. They are still an affiliate member in swimming and diving and the memory of being a part member in other sports is certainly still fresh. I highly suspect there is plenty of thinking on the matter on the Homewood campus and fear or maybe worry in the Centennial they could leave and maybe start a tidal wave. Of course, I have also heard rumors the UAA has come calling many times based simply because wouldn't it be nice for that conference to have a foot in the Baltimore/Washington, DC metroplex.
But... I don't think it happens in the short term... but should someone else leave the Centennial... I bet that is the trigger.
Kills me that Catholic let its AAU membership lapse. Catholic and Johns Hopkins would be ideal travel partners in the UAA, but Catholic isn't eligible because it's not in that organization.
That would have been a nice duo... I guess you will just have to stick with us Gophers in the meantime :).
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2013, 11:01:50 PM
Greg, agree on MIT and Johns Hopkins, but Caltech can't even compete in the SCIAC! They would be absolutely routed in every game in the UAA.
Yes, but Chuck, that has absolutely nothing to do with the profile of the schools, which is what this discussion is about. Caltech, like the other schools named, is an elite, mid-sized research university. The fact that it stinks at sports has nothing to do with the school's institutional profile or its resources; it has to do with the fact that the school utilizes a, shall we say,
quirky admissions-gatekeeper methodology that strongly militates against the ability of Caltech coaches to get student-athletes admitted. In other words, it's a totally elective variable on Caltech's part and not an inherent athletics weakness, institutionally speaking.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2013, 11:19:22 PM
Kills me that Catholic let its AAU membership lapse. Catholic and Johns Hopkins would be ideal travel partners in the UAA, but Catholic isn't eligible because it's not in that organization.
Why would they let their AAU membership lapse?
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 11:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2013, 11:19:22 PM
Kills me that Catholic let its AAU membership lapse. Catholic and Johns Hopkins would be ideal travel partners in the UAA, but Catholic isn't eligible because it's not in that organization.
Why would they let their AAU membership lapse?
You got me. I think this is getting on close to a decade ago.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2013, 11:35:01 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 11:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2013, 11:19:22 PM
Kills me that Catholic let its AAU membership lapse. Catholic and Johns Hopkins would be ideal travel partners in the UAA, but Catholic isn't eligible because it's not in that organization.
Why would they let their AAU membership lapse?
You got me. I think this is getting on close to a decade ago.
This letter (http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/news/02_PresDesk_Nov.htm) appears to be legitimate - it's from the CUA president at the time and is hosted on a CUA public affairs server. It doesn't answer all the questions, but indicates that he/CUA felt that CUA and the AAU were "moving forward, but on different trajectories."
An excerpt, emphasis mine:
QuoteIn recent years and among other things, AAU has focused upon clarifying criteria for new and continuing membership. The approval and subsequent publication of "AAU Membership Principles" in 1999 and "AAU Membership Indicators" in 2000 provided all of us in AAU with the opportunity to reflect upon our own membership and our place within AAU. Coupled with the efforts of my own institution to engage in a serious process of strategic planning, discussions occurring within AAU have led me to review CUA's continuing membership with members of my administration, including the chief academic officer and all of the university's academic deans.
While all of us believe that CUA is well positioned to fulfill its academic research mission, it has become clear that CUA and the vast majority of AAU institutions are moving forward but on different trajectories. That becomes evident as one studies the various membership indicators that can be identified by both AAU and CUA. Our institutional emphases and energies are different than those of most of our colleague institutions in AAU. As president of CUA, I believe that the university community here must focus its attention on its mission, reflected in those emphases and energies, in a consistent, concentrated and comprehensive manner. For that reason, I write to notify you that CUA will withdraw from membership in AAU, effective October 20 of this year, the date of the beginning of the AAU Fall Membership Meeting.
If anyone is curious, SOS numbers are back up on the NCAA site. You can get to them via the D3hoops.com blog (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/).
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Not that I've seen. I know one member of the national committee was informed via Twitter but I generally don't send the committee just one change -- if there are other changes that should also be included I'd bundle them up and not send a bunch of individual emails. I'm sure it's the Covenant game. They list Covenant at 6-5 but they should be 6-6.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Not that I've seen. I know one member of the national committee was informed via Twitter but I generally don't send the committee just one change -- if there are other changes that should also be included I'd bundle them up and not send a bunch of individual emails. I'm sure it's the Covenant game. They list Covenant at 6-5 but they should be 6-6.
Pestered is a better word.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 07, 2013, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2013, 11:01:50 PM
Greg, agree on MIT and Johns Hopkins, but Caltech can't even compete in the SCIAC! They would be absolutely routed in every game in the UAA.
Yes, but Chuck, that has absolutely nothing to do with the profile of the schools, which is what this discussion is about. Caltech, like the other schools named, is an elite, mid-sized research university. The fact that it stinks at sports has nothing to do with the school's institutional profile or its resources; it has to do with the fact that the school utilizes a, shall we say, quirky admissions-gatekeeper methodology that strongly militates against the ability of Caltech coaches to get student-athletes admitted. In other words, it's a totally elective variable on Caltech's part and not an inherent athletics weakness, institutionally speaking.
Greg, I'm well aware that conference composition has more facets than just athletic compatibility, but that is the public face (UAA after all stands for University
Athletic Association). Would Caltech student-athletes (a term that can still be used with a straight face in d3) be well-served by moving to a conference where they would be utterly annihilated, rather than nearly always losing, but often competitive?
I hadn't realized that their baseball team just might be even less competitive than their football and basketball teams! They recently broke a
228-game (d3 record) nonconference losing streak, beating Pacifica in the second game of a doubleheader. They responded in a properly composed manner, leading their coach (Matthew Mark) to say something that made
Sports Illustrated's 'They Said It' (essentially 'quote of the week'): "It was almost as if they had been there before." ;D (Their last nonconference win had been 10 years ago, when probably all the current players were in Little League.)
Not to mention a travel schedule for Caltech that would make the rest of the UAA look like NPU vs. Wheaton! :P
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Not that I've seen. I know one member of the national committee was informed via Twitter but I generally don't send the committee just one change -- if there are other changes that should also be included I'd bundle them up and not send a bunch of individual emails. I'm sure it's the Covenant game. They list Covenant at 6-5 but they should be 6-6.
I thought Covenant was year 3 provisional. Are year 3 provisional schools not counting now?
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Not that I've seen. I know one member of the national committee was informed via Twitter but I generally don't send the committee just one change -- if there are other changes that should also be included I'd bundle them up and not send a bunch of individual emails. I'm sure it's the Covenant game. They list Covenant at 6-5 but they should be 6-6.
I thought Covenant was year 3 provisional. Are year 3 provisional schools not counting now?
Year 3 counts. Covenant is getting credit for playing regional games, but they're a loss short and Hope is a win short on the count. Can't believe they missed the West Michigan--Georgia regional connection!
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2013, 11:17:49 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Have we received any word on why they have Hope's in-region record incorrect?
Should be 10-5
North Central
Wheaton
Covenant
Mississippi Coll.
Aurora
10 MIAA contests
Not that I've seen. I know one member of the national committee was informed via Twitter but I generally don't send the committee just one change -- if there are other changes that should also be included I'd bundle them up and not send a bunch of individual emails. I'm sure it's the Covenant game. They list Covenant at 6-5 but they should be 6-6.
I thought Covenant was year 3 provisional. Are year 3 provisional schools not counting now?
Year 3 counts. Covenant is getting credit for playing regional games, but they're a loss short and Hope is a win short on the count. Can't believe they missed the West Michigan--Georgia regional connection!
That IS as
obvious as, say, Wheaton/Occidental!
I have been told that oversight is being taken care of.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2013, 11:37:25 PM
I have been told that oversight is being taken care of.
Ya know if you read this in a James Gandolfini voice its much more entertaining. I would add a pause after 'told' with a little eye blink.
Last weeks rankings:
1 Wooster
2 Ohio Wesleyan
3. Thomas More
4. Calvin
5. St. Vincent
6. Marietta
Wooster won twice over OWU/Witt.
Ohio Wesleyan lost to Wooster, beat Hiram
Thomas More beat Westminster and Thiel
Calvin beat Alma, lost to Hope
St. Vincent beat Geneva and Bethany
Marietta lost to Capital beat Bald-Wallace
I'd guess this weeks will be:
1. Wooster 19-3
2. Thomas More 19-2
3. Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
4. St. Vincent 16-3
5. Calvin 15-1
6. Capital 17-4
Really the only other Great Lakes teams to be considered:
Hope 12-5
Marietta 16-6
Bald-Wally 16-6
Adrian 11-6
Witt 11-7
PSU-Behrend 16-7
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2013, 08:28:03 PM
I'd guess this weeks will be:
1. Wooster 19-3
2. Thomas More 19-2
3. Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
4. St. Vincent 16-3
5. Calvin 15-1
6. Capital 17-4
Really the only other Great Lakes teams to be considered:
Hope 12-5
Marietta 16-6
Bald-Wally 16-6
Adrian 11-6
Witt 11-7
PSU-Behrend 16-7
If Thomas More moves up to number two we can all just quit and go home. According to
my numbers they only have a .003 SOS advantage over Calvin right now (two road games helped the Knights this week) and they're obviously behind on the winning percentage.
HOPEing the Dutchmen can sneak in next week with two wins. Adding
2-1 versus regionally ranked would give Calvin a boost.
KnightSlappy... I have an answer to why your calculations are slightly off... I will be posting a blog on the topic hopefully later tonight - worse case tomorrow morning.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2013, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2013, 08:28:03 PM
I'd guess this weeks will be:
1. Wooster 19-3
2. Thomas More 19-2
3. Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
4. St. Vincent 16-3
5. Calvin 15-1
6. Capital 17-4
Really the only other Great Lakes teams to be considered:
Hope 12-5
Marietta 16-6
Bald-Wally 16-6
Adrian 11-6
Witt 11-7
PSU-Behrend 16-7
If Thomas More moves up to number two we can all just quit and go home. According to my numbers they only have a .003 SOS advantage over Calvin right now (two road games helped the Knights this week) and they're obviously behind on the winning percentage.
HOPEing the Dutchmen can sneak in next week with two wins. Adding 2-1 versus regionally ranked would give Calvin a boost.
Would love it myself but I can't see it.......
A) The OAC schools Capital and Marietta are both probably ahead of Hope in the math. Neither should be troubled next week.
B) As long as the Great Lakes committee continues to rank two teams from the PAC and keep a straight face about it there just isn't going to be room in a region that only ranks six teams. This next week Thomas More plays Bethany and St. Vincent plays Waynesburg. Thomas More and St. Vincent play each other next Saturday......so perhaps the next week one will drop out but I doubt it.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
KnightSlappy... I have an answer to why your calculations are slightly off... I will be posting a blog on the topic hopefully later tonight - worse case tomorrow morning.
Looking forward to it. Is it the calculation method or data efficacy?
Calculation method... I am finishing it up now, so it should be posted before lunch :).
Blog posted: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/)
And as I read this, I see it as a return to sensible math, rather than the average of averages that has been written in the handbook for years but not performed until recently.
Rely on you guys now to tell us if the numbers line up yet.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
And as I read this, I see it as a return to sensible math, rather than the average of averages that has been written in the handbook for years but not performed until recently.
Rely on you guys now to tell us if the numbers line up yet.
I get the numbers to line up, but I think the average of the averages (old way) is the right way to go. Summing the numbers puts a bigger emphasis on
how many games the other team has played. Taking Thomas More for an example: their SOS would be the same if they added a home game versus either a 15-0 team or an 18-3 team.
Interesting byproduct of the "new" way: The old way would have adjusted Thomas More's SOS down by about .010, the new way adjusts it up by .010.
Yeah... I was thinking the same thing about how many games, but that is also where the flaw is. If a team has not played a lot of games and only lost a few, the percentage is going to be out of whack high. At least this formula breaks down each part of the data instead of just taking the average.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think average of averages only works when everyone has played the same number of games. Isn't someone's .600 worth more over 25 games than over 15 or 20? Seems like .600 over 25 games should have 25 games of weight.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 12:31:38 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think average of averages only works when everyone has played the same number of games. Isn't someone's .600 worth more over 25 games than over 15 or 20? Seems like .600 over 25 games should have 25 games of weight.
I think that's correct to an extent, but is 25 games really all that different than 24 or 23 (especially when teams from the same conference can have the same schedule and have a different number of regional games)? Here's what the
new method says about opponents:
9-9 (home)
15-0 (road)
8-2 (home)
0-15 (home)
is easier than
8-8 (home)
16-0 (road)
8-2 (home)
0-16 (home)
Old method said these were identical schedules. In both cases the opponents played a combined 58 games.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 12:31:38 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think average of averages only works when everyone has played the same number of games. Isn't someone's .600 worth more over 25 games than over 15 or 20? Seems like .600 over 25 games should have 25 games of weight.
More games only increases the certainty that the .600 team is in fact a .600 team, if that makes sense. More games doesn't change the difficulty in facing that opponent.
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 12:31:38 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think average of averages only works when everyone has played the same number of games. Isn't someone's .600 worth more over 25 games than over 15 or 20? Seems like .600 over 25 games should have 25 games of weight.
More games only increases the certainty that the .600 team is in fact a .600 team, if that makes sense. More games doesn't change the difficulty in facing that opponent.
Yeah - that is where I was headed in my thinking. The NCAA wants to prove that if you are say a .750 team its because you are 15-5 and not 9-2 in your regional games. Under the averages system those two records would be considered even; under the new system the team with more wins/games gives you a bigger boost to your SOS.
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 12:31:38 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think average of averages only works when everyone has played the same number of games. Isn't someone's .600 worth more over 25 games than over 15 or 20? Seems like .600 over 25 games should have 25 games of weight.
More games only increases the certainty that the .600 team is in fact a .600 team, if that makes sense. More games doesn't change the difficulty in facing that opponent.
Right, if two teams had, say, a .450 SOS heading into the final game and both were home against .500 teams, the team facing the 14-14 team would end up with a better SOS than the team that team that played the 12-12 team.
Conversely, if two teams had a .550 SOS going in to the final game, the team that played the .500 teams with the fewest total games would come out looking better.
Is this what we want?
Actually, yes, I think so.
And of course, you must recognize that the mathematical difference between the two teams' final SOS in your hypothetical is really quite minimal.
It is about the number of games being played... or not played. That is where they were having the trouble in Division II... there were a number of provisional teams not playing a lot of games in Division II as they worked their way into the division. That resulted in teams with less games given the same benefit as the teams with more games. It is certainly a bigger factor there than it is here, but we do see it in Division III at times as well (Hope and Calvin come to mind considering sometimes the number of NAIA teams they play).
I don't have a problem that your SOS is boosted by a team that is playing more Division III teams in their region than a team that is playing less... I know it depends on the other coach's scheduling, but if we are already basing the WP on the regional games, than why shouldn't the SOS be based on those numbers and not the average as well.
And while I know this doesn't matter right now, next year we will have more games in the data flow for this, so it may become a smaller factor. And just remember, this is not a Division III decision, this is the Championships Committee decision that makes decisions for all sports in all divisions like keeping the final regional rankings private, despite cries from the Division III men's committee for one to make them public.
So basically playing Finlandia at home is the way to go. You'll get a win (not affected by weighting) and their relative few number of games will make it so their negative SOS impact doesn't hurt so much.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
It is about the number of games being played... or not played. That is where they were having the trouble in Division II... there were a number of provisional teams not playing a lot of games in Division II as they worked their way into the division. That resulted in teams with less games given the same benefit as the teams with more games. It is certainly a bigger factor there than it is here, but we do see it in Division III at times as well (Hope and Calvin come to mind considering sometimes the number of NAIA teams they play).
I don't have a problem that your SOS is boosted by a team that is playing more Division III teams in their region than a team that is playing less... I know it depends on the other coach's scheduling, but if we are already basing the WP on the regional games, than why shouldn't the SOS be based on those numbers and not the average as well.
And while I know this doesn't matter right now, next year we will have more games in the data flow for this, so it may become a smaller factor. And just remember, this is not a Division III decision, this is the Championships Committee decision that makes decisions for all sports in all divisions like keeping the final regional rankings private, despite cries from the Division III men's committee for one to make them public.
Dave, great work getting this info, by the way.
Given the way it came about, it seems the NCAA has attempted to fix a very specific issue in a way that (in my view) is more problematic.
The SOS is about gauging the strength of opponents (and opponents' opponents) as a way to give context to winning percentage. Like I said before, the number of games an opponent has played has nothing to do with their strength and therefore should have no impact on a team's SOS. Instituting or changing a minimum game requirement is a direct solution to the problem and allows the SOS calculation to remain in place. After all, the problem wasn't the SOS calc to begin with. It was a scheduling issue.
I hope this illustrates why this is bad:
Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than
Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).
Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.
Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:03:16 PM
I hope this illustrates why this is bad:
Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than
Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).
Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.
And the problem of the handful of DII provisionals will fade and we'll be left with that...
Isn't the easier "fix" to this calculus to stop worrying about what is and what isn't regional? Count 'em all the same and everybody winds up with the same number of games, plus or minus a neglible amount.
As for schools like Calvin and Hope and others that either through geographic isolation or a "dead" period in the schedule when the rest of civilazation is playing conference games have to take on an increased number of out-of-division games, shouldn't this be precisely the reason why we have human beings on a selection committee; to be able to find the spots where the math doesn't necessarily paint a complete or representative picture and then adjust accordingly? If the committee doesn't have that latitude, then we could just program an excel sheet to select and seed the teams based on the SOS math and RRO results and h2h's.
Well next year all Division III games will count as long as a team plays 70% of their games in region... so that is coming. And yes... there are humans who weigh the criteria that isn't just raw data driven and parse the numbers and decipher them accordingly... that is why none of the criteria has any weight over the other.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 11, 2013, 01:21:50 PM
Isn't the easier "fix" to this calculus to stop worrying about what is and what isn't regional? Count 'em all the same and everybody winds up with the same number of games, plus or minus a neglible amount.
As for schools like Calvin and Hope and others that either through geographic isolation or a "dead" period in the schedule when the rest of civilazation is playing conference games have to take on an increased number of out-of-division games, shouldn't this be precisely the reason why we have human beings on a selection committee; to be able to find the spots where the math doesn't necessarily paint a complete or representative picture and then adjust accordingly? If the committee doesn't have that latitude, then we could just program an excel sheet to select and seed the teams based on the SOS math and RRO results and h2h's.
With an expected appearance in the MIAA tournament championship game, Calvin will have participated in 21 in-region games. They are hardly an example for why the calculation needed to change.
This "change" is really the calculation coming back to the way it used to be. It was just written wrong in the book for several years.
ziggy- Somebody mentioned earlier that the MIAA runs into a stretch of the season where non-league D3 games are tough to come by because they don't start conference play until later than everybody else...that's why I mentioned them. Certainly they do have more games this year than they've had in years prior, which is great to see. In any case, I'm not picking on Calvin or Hope or the MIAA. The regionality rules are ridiculous, especially for the MIAA.
Dave- Why put a 70% in-region prerequisite for counting your games? Shouldn't we want to count every game we possibly can?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:29:10 PM
This "change" is really the calculation coming back to the way it used to be. It was just written wrong in the book for several years.
OWP has always meant an average of the opponents winning percentage for as long it's been a term. The D3 committee has maybe not always calculated it that way, but it's always the way it's explained when talking about OWP as a component of RPI.
That's odd, because our numbers matched the NCAA's (barring disputed data), and Patrick Abegg's numbers matched ours -- and that is the way we calculated it before the men's committee threw home/away into the calculation.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 11, 2013, 01:32:35 PM
Dave- Why put a 70% in-region prerequisite for counting your games? Shouldn't we want to count every game we possibly can?
Because simply, school presidents, who run everything in Division III, still want a regional aspect of things in Division III. They have allowed more and more national thinking, but still want a regional focus. As for the number... that isn't based on just basketball, but rather all sports... so I am sure some careful math was done to find the right number that would work with all sports.
Remember, there once was a time that the regional rankings determined the exact number of teams from each region that would make the tournament. So if the East Region had 6 teams to be ranked and the Northeast had 13 ranked... the East would have those 6 teams in and the Northeast would have 13 whether the teams near the bottom deserved it or not. We have steadily moved away from that VERY regional focus to one that is certainly more national... but unless there is a major shift in thinking, the presidents will never allow the regional aspect of things to go away (thus why the regional realignment I have heard tons of talk about and even chatted on Hoopsville with those at the NCAA about has some major challenges - among other things presidents want their conferences to all be in the same region, except the UAA).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:40:21 PM
That's odd, because our numbers matched the NCAA's (barring disputed data), and Patrick Abegg's numbers matched ours -- and that is the way we calculated it before the men's committee threw home/away into the calculation.
Wikipedia being the definitive source on everything.
QuoteThe OWP is calculated by taking the average of the WP's for each of the team's opponents with the requirement that all games against the team in question are removed from the calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:50:39 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:40:21 PM
That's odd, because our numbers matched the NCAA's (barring disputed data), and Patrick Abegg's numbers matched ours -- and that is the way we calculated it before the men's committee threw home/away into the calculation.
Wikipedia being the definitive source on everything.
QuoteThe OWP is calculated by taking the average of the WP's for each of the team's opponents with the requirement that all games against the team in question are removed from the calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index
You mean to tell me the NCAA might say one thing and mean another? Shocked, I am, shocked!
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:50:39 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:40:21 PM
That's odd, because our numbers matched the NCAA's (barring disputed data), and Patrick Abegg's numbers matched ours -- and that is the way we calculated it before the men's committee threw home/away into the calculation.
Wikipedia being the definitive source on everything.
QuoteThe OWP is calculated by taking the average of the WP's for each of the team's opponents with the requirement that all games against the team in question are removed from the calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index
You mean to tell me the NCAA might say one thing and mean another? Shocked, I am, shocked!
They still claim they're ranking 6.5% of the number of teams in each region too.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:54:33 PM
They still claim they're ranking 6.5% of the number of teams in each region too.
It would be tough to crack the regional rankings of 3 teams.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 11, 2013, 01:32:35 PM
Dave- Why put a 70% in-region prerequisite for counting your games? Shouldn't we want to count every game we possibly can?
Because simply, school presidents, who run everything in Division III, still want a regional aspect of things in Division III.
I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating here...where is the evidence that once they take the shackles of regionality out of the equation that teams from the northeast or mid-atlantic are going to play all of their non-league games in Texas and California and not at any of the scores of schools that are within easy driving distance? Where are all of the Division III presidents that are going to spend the dollars to ship their basketball team all over the country for single non-league games? It just isn't going to happen. Regional play is going to happen without anybody forcing it to.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 01:43:12 PM
They have allowed more and more national thinking, but still want a regional focus. As for the number... that isn't based on just basketball, but rather all sports... so I am sure some careful math was done to find the right number that would work with all sports.
Oy. You can't have a one size fits all set of rules for every NCAA championship. Football is different than basketball which is different than soccer which is different than baseball which is different than swimming which is different than...there's nothing un-D3 about recognizing that each championship is unique and crafting championship selection criteria that best serve each championship. Unless they're not willing to put in that effort, which is entirely possible. And sad.
As for the rationality and not playing elsewhere in the country... remember one big thing, athletics can be a very powerful recruiting tool to more than just athletes. Seeing a school like Amherst or Chicago or NYU at a school or region far from their base is a helpful way to tell people about your school (one of the reasons the UAA would LOVE to get JHU back into the fold). It is also a great way to engage or re-engage alumni. Don't be surprised with schools of far bigger pockets going and playing more than a couple of games well away from home. It certainly won't be the majority, but enough to make sure you have everyone play by the same rules.
And as for one-size fits all, that is the nature of the beast. It has been true in every sport in every division of the NCAA except for D1 basketball and football. The tournaments are all based on 6.5:1 and how they are selected is not unique to Division III. The only thing different is the regions and that is something they are looking into changing in a major realignment... and as a result, every sport is being considered so there can be some sort of uniformity though there won't be 8 regions in a lot of sports.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 11, 2013, 04:11:53 PM
I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating here...where is the evidence that once they take the shackles of regionality out of the equation that teams from the northeast or mid-atlantic are going to play all of their non-league games in Texas and California and not at any of the scores of schools that are within easy driving distance? Where are all of the Division III presidents that are going to spend the dollars to ship their basketball team all over the country for single non-league games? It just isn't going to happen. Regional play is going to happen without anybody forcing it to.
I agree -- I don't think there will be a significant change to the way teams schedule, unless there are those who need to schedule differently to get to 70%, if there is anyone anymore.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:18:21 PM
As for the rationality and not playing elsewhere in the country... remember one big thing, athletics can be a very powerful recruiting tool to more than just athletes. Seeing a school like Amherst or Chicago or NYU at a school or region far from their base is a helpful way to tell people about your school (one of the reasons the UAA would LOVE to get JHU back into the fold). It is also a great way to engage or re-engage alumni. Don't be surprised with schools of far bigger pockets going and playing more than a couple of games well away from home. It certainly won't be the majority, but enough to make sure you have everyone play by the same rules.
And as for one-size fits all, that is the nature of the beast. It has been true in every sport in every division of the NCAA except for D1 basketball and football. The tournaments are all based on 6.5:1 and how they are selected is not unique to Division III. The only thing different is the regions and that is something they are looking into changing in a major realignment... and as a result, every sport is being considered so there can be some sort of uniformity though there won't be 8 regions in a lot of sports.
...and how exactly is this fear of traveling all over the country any different than gathering in Las Vegas or Florida to play tournaments with a heavy focus on getting regional games?
I think a good part of this is the 99% of colleges' presidents trying to keep the 1%ers from doing this. I'm not sure it would actually happen but I guess we'll find out.
Regionality is a valid part of the D-III philosophy. It's just been used in some interesting ways.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:27:06 PM
Regionality is a valid part of the D-III philosophy. It's just been used in some interesting ways.
And defined in interesting ways when Wheaton/Occidental and Hope/Mississippi are "regional", but Calvin/Wheaton is not. ::) ???
As I have said annually for about a decade, every map has borders. Each one-fourth of Division III has to have lines somewhere.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 05:04:54 PM
As I have said annually for about a decade, every map has borders. Each one-fourth of Division III has to have lines somewhere.
The difference with the revision next year - Calvin/Wheaton count just not as 'in region'. I think the revision opens up possibilites, for examples, CCIW/MIAA or CCIW/HCAC
I don't think any of us here have a problem with the need for borders. Lack of consistency in the rationale and arguments is where I get frustrated.
Don't travel all over the country. OK - Calvin and Wheaton or Hope and IWU will play each other. Oh wait - you need to play more regional games, and those aren't regional. OK - Hope will play Mississippi and Wheaton could go to California or Oregon. Oh wait - we weren't supposed to travel across the country.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 08, 2013, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 07, 2013, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2013, 11:01:50 PM
Greg, agree on MIT and Johns Hopkins, but Caltech can't even compete in the SCIAC! They would be absolutely routed in every game in the UAA.
Yes, but Chuck, that has absolutely nothing to do with the profile of the schools, which is what this discussion is about. Caltech, like the other schools named, is an elite, mid-sized research university. The fact that it stinks at sports has nothing to do with the school's institutional profile or its resources; it has to do with the fact that the school utilizes a, shall we say, quirky admissions-gatekeeper methodology that strongly militates against the ability of Caltech coaches to get student-athletes admitted. In other words, it's a totally elective variable on Caltech's part and not an inherent athletics weakness, institutionally speaking.
Greg, I'm well aware that conference composition has more facets than just athletic compatibility, but that is the public face (UAA after all stands for University Athletic Association). Would Caltech student-athletes (a term that can still be used with a straight face in d3) be well-served by moving to a conference where they would be utterly annihilated, rather than nearly always losing, but often competitive?
I hadn't realized that their baseball team just might be even less competitive than their football and basketball teams! They recently broke a 228-game (d3 record) nonconference losing streak, beating Pacifica in the second game of a doubleheader. They responded in a properly composed manner, leading their coach (Matthew Mark) to say something that made Sports Illustrated's 'They Said It' (essentially 'quote of the week'): "It was almost as if they had been there before." ;D (Their last nonconference win had been 10 years ago, when probably all the current players were in Little League.)
Losing is losing, Chuck. The degree may be a little different -- in the UAA the basketball Beavers might lose by an average of 20 every night instead of losing by an average of 15, and the baseball Beavers might lose by an average of 12 runs instead of 7 or 8 -- but it's not as though it would really make any difference. Caltech gets drubbed in the SCIAC as it is. You can't really argue that the quality of a student-athlete's experience would suffer when, if you base the argument upon winning as being the element that enhances said experience, the Beavers aren't currently being well-served, anyway.
Besides, UAA programs use the travel involved as an asset rather than as a liability in terms of recruiting. Sure, there are complications involved in having to spend four weekends in January and February making a long out-of-state trip (three of which involve Friday-to-Sunday trips). But they're also selling points: "Come play for Case Western Reserve, and you'll be playing games in New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and St. Louis!" As D-Mac said, UAA schools like the travel because they get to show the flag both to far-flung prospects and to far-flung alumni. But it's an enhancement for the student-athletes as well.
Caltech isn't like its SCIAC brethren; it's a research university rather than a liberal arts college. The whole point of the UAA is to match like-minded institutions, and Caltech is of a kin with those schools. (Besides, if MIT joined as well, the ultimate geek rivalry would finally come to fruition. :D) As for the expense of all that travel, Caltech's got an endowment of 1.7 billion dollars. Like the UAA schools, it can afford it.
Greg, I can agree that ultimately "losing is losing", but as a former (youth, not college) coach, there is a HUGE difference between being competitive (which Caltech often is in the SCIAC) but losing, and getting constantly blown out. In the (blessedly rare) seasons we were constantly blown out, kids simply stopped showing up and played with little energy when they did (and these were teams young enough that we didn't even officially keep score - but they knew the score :P Only when coaching 6-year-olds did I get away with "Coach, did we win?" "Did you have fun?" "Yes." "Then we won." when in fact we lost by 4-5 goals ;)).
Maybe my argument is irrelevant to college athletes, but I tend to think human nature prevails.
I just don't think that the difference between losing badly, for the most part, and losing really badly, for the most part, comes even close to canceling out the institutional affinities issue. Caltech's true sister schools are Chicago, Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, etc., not Cal Lutheran, Chapman, and Occidental.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 09:30:00 PM
I just don't think that the difference between losing badly, for the most part, and losing really badly, for the most part, comes even close to canceling out the institutional affinities issue. Caltech's true sister schools are Chicago, Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, etc., not Cal Lutheran, Chapman, and Occidental.
True, but if all your sisters are more than 2,000 miles away, can't you find friends in the neighborhood?! ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2013, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 09:30:00 PM
I just don't think that the difference between losing badly, for the most part, and losing really badly, for the most part, comes even close to canceling out the institutional affinities issue. Caltech's true sister schools are Chicago, Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, etc., not Cal Lutheran, Chapman, and Occidental.
True, but if all your sisters are more than 2,000 miles away, can't you find friends in the neighborhood?! ;)
Sure, you can. And those friends are named Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, USC, and Washington. (http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=5476) But, somehow, I just don't see Caltech being invited to join the Pac-10. ;)
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 10:03:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2013, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 09:30:00 PM
I just don't think that the difference between losing badly, for the most part, and losing really badly, for the most part, comes even close to canceling out the institutional affinities issue. Caltech's true sister schools are Chicago, Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, etc., not Cal Lutheran, Chapman, and Occidental.
True, but if all your sisters are more than 2,000 miles away, can't you find friends in the neighborhood?! ;)
Sure, you can. And those friends are named Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, USC, and Washington. (http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=5476) But, somehow, I just don't see Caltech being invited to join the Pac-10. ;)
But if the
Mean Girls won't let you in, you gotta do what what you can do! ::)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:27:06 PM
I think a good part of this is the 99% of colleges' presidents trying to keep the 1%ers from doing this. I'm not sure it would actually happen but I guess we'll find out.
That's too bad if that's what is happening. Whether the 99% of presidents make it undesireable for teams that can and want to travel or not, those schools are still national brands like Chicago or WashU or Amherst and the 99% are not. Whether those guys spend to play a tournament in Vegas or SoCal, they're still going to recruit nationally and most of the rest of us smaller, private, lib arts schools aren't. And that's ok. We should still want to count all of the results of the games. :)
Guessing:
1. Wooster
2. Thomas More (ugh)
3. Calvin (can't justify higher based on the new "special" numbers)
4. Ohio Wesleyan (could justify anywhere 2-4)
5. St. Vincent (ugh)
6. Capital
Hope would be next.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings
1 Wooster 19-3 19-3
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-5
3 Thomas More 19-2 20-3
4 Capital 17-4 17-6
5 Saint Vincent 16-3 18-5
6 Calvin 16-1 20-3
Did Calvin keep the RAC chair's daughter out past curfew or something? Yeesh.
Wow. By any objective or subjective measure known to me, Calvin should be no worse than 4th here. Really, they should be 2nd or 3rd at very worst. Thomas More's a decent team - in the 40's in the Massey rating. Their best win is Spalding though (however, having DePauw go el-tanko in the NCAC is hurting them...) but Calvin beats them 6 or 7 out of 10.
However, Calvin's ranking may be predestined...
Hope's record is still wrong on the NCAA data sheet.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 02:24:06 PM
Hope's record is still wrong on the NCAA data sheet.
I'd expect nothing less.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2013, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 02:24:06 PM
Hope's record is still wrong on the NCAA data sheet.
I'd expect nothing less.
Could have been enough to push Hope into the #6 spot based on what it looks like they're doing.
Just in case an regional reps should drop by and read this here are Hope's in-region games and why.
North Central--under 200 miles
Wheaton--under 200 miles
Covenant--administrative region 3
Mississippi College--administrative region 3
Aurora--under 200 miles
As of this reporting date Hope has played 12 MIAA contests.
Total of 17 in-region games with a 12-5 record.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2013, 03:18:28 PM
Just in case an regional reps should drop by and read this here are Hope's in-region games and why.
North Central--under 200 miles
Wheaton--under 200 miles
Covenant--administrative region 3
Mississippi College--administrative region 3
Aurora--under 200 miles
As of this reporting date Hope has played 12 MIAA contests.
Total of 17 in-region games with a 12-5 record.
As with a few previous discussions, I will be the first to admit (others have said I don't too), I don't understand or have near the knowledge that several posters on this board do when it comes to regional rankings and formulas. I will also say, based on what I have seen this year, I will never spend the time to understand them.
All I can say, is based on Calvin's current #6 ranking and having Hope's record still wrong, the NCAA should be (but I'm sure their not) embarrased.
This process is just a disgrace.
Somehow, someway, I hope that Hope and Calvin both make the NCAA tourney and then "on the court" show some of these higher ranked teams, what really matters. I understand it is not the "fault" of the higher ranked teams, but I sure will enjoy it if Hope and/or Calvin come head to head with a couple of these teams and defeat them.
Guess the next thing to worry about will be if Hope's women lose 3 times to Calvin women and that is their only losses and they don't get in. :o :( >:( ??? :'(
Per Hope... I know the message was relayed... and I was told it would be adjusted... I am not sure why it wasn't.
Two key things Calvin has going against them: an SOS of .431 which is roughly in the bottom 1/4 of the country... and no results versus regionally ranked opponents. We have seen over the last two years that these two keys will hurt a team if they have a low SOS and if they didn't play a lot of teams that ended up being regionally ranked. Franciscan and Pitt-Greensburg are the only other two teams in the Great Lakes region with no opponents that have been ranked regionally.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
Per Hope... I know the message was relayed... and I was told it would be adjusted... I am not sure why it wasn't.
Two key things Calvin has going against them: an SOS of .431 which is roughly in the bottom 1/4 of the country... and no results versus regionally ranked opponents. We have seen over the last two years that these two keys will hurt a team if they have a low SOS and if they didn't play a lot of teams that ended up being regionally ranked. Franciscan and Pitt-Greensburg are the only other two teams in the Great Lakes region with no opponents that have been ranked regionally.
Also a good time to remember Birmingham Southern got in last year with a .917 WP, a .441 SOS, and no games vs. regionally ranked.
Yep... and F&M made up for their low SOS to secure two weekends of hosting. Calvin can easily move up the rankings - we have seen it happen in the past.
Wheaton is regionally ranked, Calvin played Wheaton
probably more data they are leaving out.
Quote from: sac on February 13, 2013, 04:02:55 PM
Wheaton is regionally ranked, Calvin played Wheaton
probably more data they are leaving out.
Secondary criteria, though. Out of region game.
Yeah: in-region results versus regionally ranked opponents is primary.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
Per Hope... I know the message was relayed... and I was told it would be adjusted... I am not sure why it wasn't.
Two key things Calvin has going against them: an SOS of .431 which is roughly in the bottom 1/4 of the country... and no results versus regionally ranked opponents. We have seen over the last two years that these two keys will hurt a team if they have a low SOS and if they didn't play a lot of teams that ended up being regionally ranked. Franciscan and Pitt-Greensburg are the only other two teams in the Great Lakes region with no opponents that have been ranked regionally.
From the looks of it Calvin could get on equal standing with St. Vincent if they were able to magically add in a road in-region loss to a regionally ranked opponent. Yay!
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
Per Hope... I know the message was relayed... and I was told it would be adjusted... I am not sure why it wasn't.
Two key things Calvin has going against them: an SOS of .431 which is roughly in the bottom 1/4 of the country... and no results versus regionally ranked opponents. We have seen over the last two years that these two keys will hurt a team if they have a low SOS and if they didn't play a lot of teams that ended up being regionally ranked. Franciscan and Pitt-Greensburg are the only other two teams in the Great Lakes region with no opponents that have been ranked regionally.
Who's fault is it that Calvin has not played regionally ranked opponents? This process is an abomination. No worries NCAA, only 4 years of extremely hard work and dedication by your student/athletes at stake...thanks for punching the numbers into a spreadsheet.
The criteria isn't new and Vande Streek said on Hoopsville that this year they had some opponents who didn't live up to expectations. Even he realizes sometimes it is out of your hands. Win the AQ and you won't have to worry about it. We also have two regional rankings to come (one public, one private - the final one) where Calvin can improve - their SOS has already come up .02 thanks to teams like Hope improving their WPs.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:05:38 PM
Yeah: in-region results versus regionally ranked opponents is primary.
Your point was they had not played a regionally ranked opponent, I was pointing out they had.
Primary or secondary was not part of the equation.
sac - I was talking about criteria and I am sorry I didn't say "in-region" which I thought would be assumed. That data is also in the SOS sheets provided by the NCAA: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB®ion=30&division=3 (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB®ion=30&division=3)
Also a good one: Capital is ranked above St. Vincent because Marietta used to be ranked. Once ranked always ranked is a huge joke.
Well they put that in because teams were getting punished in the final regional rankings when a team that was ranked the whole time dropped out... which then hurt other teams in the region. It was really bad the first year when the rankings went through a gut check after conference tournaments.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:21:49 PM
Well they put that in because teams were getting punished in the final regional rankings when a team that was ranked the whole time dropped out... which then hurt other teams in the region. It was really bad the first year when the rankings went through a gut check after conference tournaments.
Getting "punished" for not scheduling games versus teams that would end up regionally ranked? Isn't how the results versus regionally ranked criterion works?
No... it was teams like in the East and Atlantic that only have six spots and a team that was regionally ranked the whole time took a bad loss and slipped out in the very last rankings. I am not talking about any regional ranking prior to that... just the very last one. That is what happened a few years ago. And usually it was the conference opponent that ended up being hurt by it... not one they had or had not scheduled.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:21:49 PM
Well they put that in because teams were getting punished in the final regional rankings when a team that was ranked the whole time dropped out... which then hurt other teams in the region. It was really bad the first year when the rankings went through a gut check after conference tournaments.
Which makes sense. I know you are just reporting the process and thank you for that. It just seems like a lot of bandaids on a pretty brutal process. If they did regional ranking throughout the year Calvin would have benefitted quite highly for wins vs Adrian who may be have been pretty high in early january when they boasted an undefeated record and a win vs #1 wooster...at wooster.
Trust me - I wish there were more regional rankings - there used to be I think up to six... but they have cut back and one of the biggest reasons is because even in mid-January there isn't a lot of data to base on and with the fact there is "once ranked, always ranked" they don't want to be ranking opponents who really probably don't deserve to be ranked on so little data but they have to because the criteria says that team should be ranked.
As for the criteria and rules... these are not mutually exclusive to basketball... they are across the board for all sports. So, it is the overall Championships Committee at the NCAA who ultimately decides if these protocols will be put in place. If they didn't make sense for all of most sports, they don't do it.
Interesting to me: only 5 regionally ranked teams (that would count as an in-region game) exist within 385 miles for Calvin. 10 exist period.
Too bad Hope wasn't having a better season as many, including myself, expected... you could add at least one more to that list. Very interesting indeed, KnightSlappy.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Too bad Hope wasn't having a better season as many, including myself, expected... you could add at least one more to that list. Very interesting indeed, KnightSlappy.
Yes, Dave, I agree it would be nice if Hope had a better record.
However, 4 of their losses are to regionally ranked teams, 3 of which were on the road and one was a neurtal site. (IWU #1, NCC #4, Wheaton #3 and Calvin #6).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:26:36 PM
No... it was teams like in the East and Atlantic that only have six spots and a team that was regionally ranked the whole time took a bad loss and slipped out in the very last rankings. I am not talking about any regional ranking prior to that... just the very last one. That is what happened a few years ago. And usually it was the conference opponent that ended up being hurt by it... not one they had or had not scheduled.
Why is a win against a team with a bad loss in November, worse than a team with a bad loss in February? The only regional ranking that should matter is the last one.
November is already factor in when they do the previous regional rankings, for starters... and in small regions, falling out of the rankings is pretty easy. Again, this isn't just a basketball thing, clearly there were issues with this in other sports or they wouldn't have made the change.
And a loss in November is kind of even with a loss in February, my point was it may have been an early conference tournament loss precluding the team from getting more games or wins, so the loss is bad from a timing point of view.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Too bad Hope wasn't having a better season as many, including myself, expected... you could add at least one more to that list. Very interesting indeed, KnightSlappy.
Well, Hope is having a better season than the NCAA is currently giving them credit for...
Quote from: ziggy on February 13, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Too bad Hope wasn't having a better season as many, including myself, expected... you could add at least one more to that list. Very interesting indeed, KnightSlappy.
Well, Hope is having a better season than the NCAA is currently giving them credit for...
They're 47thj in Massey, so it's not like they're having an elite season to end all seasons. Eight losses is squarely bubble-licious.
Provocative post on KnightSlappy's blog leading with the assertion that the NCAA SOS calculation is simply wrong.
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html
Quote from: oldknight on February 13, 2013, 11:34:37 PM
Provocative post on KnightSlappy's blog leading with the assertion that the NCAA SOS calculation is simply wrong.
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html
Had Calvin played Finlandia and Manchester at home instead of on the road, it would have
raised their OWP by .012.
For next week it's looking like:
Wooster
Ohio Wesleyan
Thomas More
St. Vincent
Capital
Calvin
had Marietta not been ranked in the first rankings (or if the criteria didn't use the always dumb once-ranked always ranked method), we would probably be looking at:
Wooster
Ohio Wesleyan
Thomas More
St. Vincent
Calvin
Hope
Perhaps I spoke too soon. I just updated my numbers again, and it looks like Hope (and Calvin) could sneak in ahead of Capital come Wednesday's rankings.
I think "once ranked always ranked" is considered 'dumb' if it adversely affects you... ;)
Quote from: smedindy on February 16, 2013, 08:57:50 PM
I think "once ranked always ranked" is considered 'dumb' if it adversely affects you... ;)
That's why one incessantly points it out, of course ( ;D), but Marietta is nowhere close to being ranked right now.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 08:36:31 PM
Perhaps I spoke too soon. I just updated my numbers again, and it looks like Hope (and Calvin) could sneak in ahead of Capital come Wednesday's rankings.
They won't drop Capital behind Hope. I'd just settle for getting Hope's w/l record correct, we'll go from there. Baby steps.
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2013, 09:30:29 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 08:36:31 PM
Perhaps I spoke too soon. I just updated my numbers again, and it looks like Hope (and Calvin) could sneak in ahead of Capital come Wednesday's rankings.
They won't drop Capital behind Hope. I'd just settle for getting Hope's w/l record correct, we'll go from there. Baby steps.
A non-insignificant factor: if they don't get Hope's record correct and that's enough to keep them below Capital.
Trying to make it 0-3 in my predictions for the regional rankings. I see two possibilities for this week:
1. Wooster
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Thomas More
4. St. Vincent
5. Calvin
6. Capital
or
1. Wooster
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Thomas More
4. St. Vincent
5. Calvin
6. Hope
I'm still pretty sure that every other committee in the last three years would put Calvin #1.
It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year. I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?!
But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... ::)
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 18, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... ::)
But its all laid out in the manual..... ;)
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 18, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year. I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?!
But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... ::)
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
Calvin's problems in terms of the criteria are:
* SOS (.444) - to put .444 into perspective, it is the lowest of the 56 teams I looked at here - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.4365.
* The fact that they not only don't have any wins over regionally ranked teams, but they don't have any games played. To put 0-0 in perspective, of those 56 teams, Calvin is the only one without a game played vs a regionally ranked team...and one of three without a win (Texas-Dallas, Hobart).
Not that it counts for anything, but interesting to note that the computer model KnightSlappy produces has Calvin #7 in the Great Lakes, behind the 6 above and Hope - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
I'm not saying Calvin isn't one of the top 2-3 teams in the region in actuality, but in terms of the published criteria they do have significant problems.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:07:12 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 18, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year. I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?!
But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... ::)
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
Calvin's problems in terms of the criteria are:
* SOS (.444) - to put .444 into perspective, it is the lowest of the 56 teams I looked at here - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.4365.
* The fact that they not only don't have any wins over regionally ranked teams, but they don't have any games played
Not that it counts for anything, but interesting to note that the computer model KnightSlappy produces has Calvin #7 in the Great Lakes, behind the 6 above and Hope - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
I'm not saying Calvin isn't one of the top 2-3 teams in the region in actuality, but in terms of the published criteria they do have significant problems.
I don't so much have a problem with where Calvin is ranked (see the aforementioned link on my blog) so much as I have a problem with where they're ranked compared to where we've seen similarly resumed teams of the past ranked.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:07:12 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 18, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year. I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?!
But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... ::)
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
Calvin's problems in terms of the criteria are:
* SOS (.444) - to put .444 into perspective, it is the lowest of the 56 teams I looked at here - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.4365.
* The fact that they not only don't have any wins over regionally ranked teams, but they don't have any games played
Not that it counts for anything, but interesting to note that the computer model KnightSlappy produces has Calvin #7 in the Great Lakes, behind the 6 above and Hope - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
I'm not saying Calvin isn't one of the top 2-3 teams in the region in actuality, but in terms of the published criteria they do have significant problems.
I don't so much have a problem with where Calvin is ranked (see the aforementioned link on my blog) so much as I have a problem with where they're ranked compared to where we've seen similarly resumed teams of the past ranked.
Therein lies the conundrum. The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand. But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way. I feel confident in saying that in
most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third. And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2013, 09:50:24 PM
Therein lies the conundrum. The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand. But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way. I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third. And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!
I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region? You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2013, 09:50:24 PM
Therein lies the conundrum. The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand. But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way. I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third. And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!
I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region? You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/22/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/
Birmingham-Southern last year was basically a carbon copy of Calvin.
They won a Pool C spot with (according to my numbers) .917/.441/0-0.
.826/.516/0-1 Lake Forest was left out.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 09:59:42 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2013, 09:50:24 PM
Therein lies the conundrum. The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand. But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way. I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third. And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!
I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region? You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/22/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/
Birmingham-Southern last year was basically a carbon copy of Calvin.
They won a Pool C spot with (according to my numbers) .917/.441/0-0.
.826/.516/0-1 Lake Forest was left out.
That's a good example. Here is an idea of who they got in over...
Round 19(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0 (W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3
That reference to Round 19 is just where I guessed they got in - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855. I certainly can't prove that.
I'd certainly have rewarded Birmingham Southern mainly because of the isolation factor. I think the Calvin folks need fret not - unless they're just bloviating just to pump up their post numbers! ;)
99% sure the top four will be set: 1. Wooster, 2. OWU, 3. Thomas More, 4. St. Vincent
Then I see four possibilities:
5. Calvin, 6. Capital
5. Calvin, 6. Hope
5. Hope, 6. Calvin
5. Hope, 6. Capital
In any of the above scenarios, Calvin would be effectively fifth in the region because they'll either (1) really be fifth in the region or (2) have a 1-1 vRRO from Hope due to hit in the final rankings which would make up the difference.
I don't see either
5. Capital, 6. Calvin
5. Capital, 6. Hope
as real possibilities. I don't believe there is an argument by which Capital should be above Calvin that wouldn't also put Hope above Capital.
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2013, 10:49:32 PM
I'd certainly have rewarded Birmingham Southern mainly because of the isolation factor. I think the Calvin folks need fret not - unless they're just bloviating just to pump up their post numbers! ;)
I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation. For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region". Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games. Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams. Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C. The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team. The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.
Quote from: realist on February 19, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation. For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region". Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games. Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams. Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C. The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team. The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.
Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:
1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and
2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.
Both of these things have been important for many years now. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say "now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams" - these things have been important for the last 5 years+. When we look back on the selection process we can clearly see this.
I think the frustration is really more around the perceived inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated, 1) at the two levels (regional, national), and 2) from year to year.
Agreed. Neither of these things is new.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2013, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: realist on February 19, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation. For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region". Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games. Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams. Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C. The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team. The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.
Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:
1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and
2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.
Both of these things have been important for many years now. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say "now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams" - these things have been important for the last 5 years+. When we look back on the selection process we can clearly see this.
I think the frustration is really more around the perceived inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated, 1) at the two levels (regional, national), and 2) from year to year.
I think you are being generous and disingenuous at the same time with the "perceived inconsistency" statement. If the metrics change from region to region, and year to year that is not "percieved", but in fact, real "inconsistency". When the metrics aren't locked, and equally applied it gives room for exactly the kind of chicanery that the NCAA would have us believe they go to great lenghts to avoid.
I think when it comes to "inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated" it is more on how the committee(s) have evolved with the data. There was a time when some of the criteria seemed to be ignored or parts were influenced too highly. I know that last year there were issues in some regions that the SOS was basically being ignored while in others the WP seemed to be playing second fiddle.
Having talked to a number of committee members, especially chairs, in the last five plus years, I can tell you that they are constantly trying to improve the process and not allow any single factor to out weigh others. As a result we have seen an evolution in how teams have been ranked.
I would also say that last year's inconsistencies and the inability for the national committee to make changes to the weekly rankings (a first for last year and something not repeated this year) caused many on the national and regional committees to be frustrated. I also know that many were frustrated by the leadership last year along with the lack of communication on decisions made, etc.
However, I will say that Calvin's scenario is not new. There were many teams last year with strong WPs but low SOSs: Albertus Magnus, F&M, Medaille, Bethany and CMS come to mind. F&M actually moved up the regional rankings to finish #2, but it had more to do with the teams losing around them then anything else. The rest of those teams were in the middle or low end of their rankings in the final ones made public.
Is Calvin maybe better than their ranking indicates? Probably. However, even Coach Vande Streek said on Hoopsville that teams they had on the schedule didn't perform to their potential this year and Calvin is having to pay for it. He has served on the committee and knows how this works and I didn't hear him complain once for their scenario.
And finally, I get the real sense that many people want these selections and rankings to be cut and dry and based on only hard data and weighted accordingly... that isn't going to happen. The BSC.. I mean BCS doesn't allow the computers to control the rankings completely... and D1 basketball doesn't allow the data to control it completely. There are committees in place that will weigh the data per each head-to-head and such to decide where teams will be placed or selected. We shouldn't be getting away some type of human interpretation. And remember, the "old boys network" made some of the strangest decisions of all time... at least the data helps get rid of that aspect of the selection process and makes the committees look at the real information in front of them to make these decisions.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2013, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: realist on February 19, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation. For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region". Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games. Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams. Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C. The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team. The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.
Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:
1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and
2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.
These issues are potentially at odds though. The average WP of Calvin's possible non-conference, in-region opponents (considering only teams that exist in MI, the GL region, or MW region -- not Virginia or anything) is .469.
So, potentially, playing MORE regional games means playing worse ones.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2013, 12:27:44 PM
And finally, I get the real sense that many people want these selections and rankings to be cut and dry and based on only hard data and weighted accordingly... that isn't going to happen. The BSC.. I mean BCS doesn't allow the computers to control the rankings completely... and D1 basketball doesn't allow the data to control it completely. There are committees in place that will weigh the data per each head-to-head and such to decide where teams will be placed or selected. We shouldn't be getting away some type of human interpretation. And remember, the "old boys network" made some of the strangest decisions of all time... at least the data helps get rid of that aspect of the selection process and makes the committees look at the real information in front of them to make these decisions.
And the coach votes is/was where the corruption exists.
Thanks to 'd-mac' for a detailed and fair rendering of a process that will always be imperfect. The bottom line is that if Calvin wins two games this week, Pool C trivia is, well, just trivia to them. Conference results showed the Knights were the best team in the MIAA this year, they are healthy, and they get home court advantage. Things are set up for them to win two games this week so let's just do it.
It just seems like Calvin's treatment in these rankings are particularly punitive.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2013, 12:03:28 PM
Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:
1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and
2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.
The number of in-region games you play is (largely) under your own control. Your win% in those games is under your control. But SOS and results vs RROs (specifically whether or not any of your opponents ever gets ranked) is not. That's the bugaboo.
In football, where you only have 9 or 10 results to look at, you really need dig into the minutiae of SOS and RROs to separate at-large candidates. In basketball, over the course of 25+ games, I think those metrics become less necessary. Win% becomes the most important thing because over 25+ games, it's really hard to be undefeated or lose just once or twice or three times no matter who was on your schedule. Take a look at Wooster for example. Wooster is 21-4 and are 3-1 against RROs which is quite nice. But three of the four games they've lost are to unranked and really pretty average teams. Wooster didn't get to 22-3 and it wasn't because their schedule was harder. They lost three games to the same caliber of team that Calvin never lost to (or maybe just once vs. Carthage). And never mind the common opponent thing there either, although that just underscores the point.
If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine. I don't agree, but I can buy it. It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games. That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.
Quote from: oldknight on February 19, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
Thanks to 'd-mac' for a detailed and fair rendering of a process that will always be imperfect. The bottom line is that if Calvin wins two games this week, Pool C trivia is, well, just trivia to them. Conference results showed the Knights were the best team in the MIAA this year, they are healthy, and they get home court advantage. Things are set up for them to win two games this week so let's just do it.
But this is about more than just Pool C, it's about seeding and hosting as well. It's possible that Calvin hosts zero games even if they win out. They'd probably get the opening round, though, with the new format for this year.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 12:37:07 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2013, 12:27:44 PM
And finally, I get the real sense that many people want these selections and rankings to be cut and dry and based on only hard data and weighted accordingly... that isn't going to happen. The BSC.. I mean BCS doesn't allow the computers to control the rankings completely... and D1 basketball doesn't allow the data to control it completely. There are committees in place that will weigh the data per each head-to-head and such to decide where teams will be placed or selected. We shouldn't be getting away some type of human interpretation. And remember, the "old boys network" made some of the strangest decisions of all time... at least the data helps get rid of that aspect of the selection process and makes the committees look at the real information in front of them to make these decisions.
And the coach votes is/was where the corruption exists.
But the BCS (the people behind it, that is) also prohibit the computers from considering margin of victory. I believe a number of the computer pollsters publish their official BCS rankings and also publish a different set of "better" BCS rankings based on what they believe to be a more accurate model.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 12:44:34 PM
Quote from: oldknight on February 19, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
Thanks to 'd-mac' for a detailed and fair rendering of a process that will always be imperfect. The bottom line is that if Calvin wins two games this week, Pool C trivia is, well, just trivia to them. Conference results showed the Knights were the best team in the MIAA this year, they are healthy, and they get home court advantage. Things are set up for them to win two games this week so let's just do it.
But this is about more than just Pool C, it's about seeding and hosting as well. It's possible that Calvin hosts zero games even if they win out. They'd probably get the opening round, though, with the new format for this year.
Fair point. But if the committee winds up putting Calvin at Aurora, that's fine with me.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 12:44:34 PM
Quote from: oldknight on February 19, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
Thanks to 'd-mac' for a detailed and fair rendering of a process that will always be imperfect. The bottom line is that if Calvin wins two games this week, Pool C trivia is, well, just trivia to them. Conference results showed the Knights were the best team in the MIAA this year, they are healthy, and they get home court advantage. Things are set up for them to win two games this week so let's just do it.
But this is about more than just Pool C, it's about seeding and hosting as well. It's possible that Calvin hosts zero games even if they win out. They'd probably get the opening round, though, with the new format for this year.
Considering there are no pods to host this year, I don't think this would be an issue. There is a real chance they can host games against the Rose-Hulmans and others in the first or second round... and then hit the road for the third round. And again, with losses in conference tournaments and their SOS improving because of teams like Hope winning right now, they could easily move up the polls as F&M did last year.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 12:34:47 PM
The average WP of Calvin's possible non-conference, in-region opponents (considering only teams that exist in MI, the GL region, or MW region -- not Virginia or anything) is .469.
So, potentially, playing MORE regional games means playing worse ones.
To expand the point further, going out to 200 miles, the average non-conference, in-region opponent Calvin could have potentially faced has a .375 winning percentage. Out to 300 miles it's still only .441 (boosted by OWU and Wooster both being 290-300 miles away).
I know teams around the country (particularly out west and in the south) have to drive to find games, but does the NCAA consider this or do they rigidly hold to the SOS number while eschewing hard selection metrics that they'd have to rigidly hold to?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 01:00:33 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 12:34:47 PM
The average WP of Calvin's possible non-conference, in-region opponents (considering only teams that exist in MI, the GL region, or MW region -- not Virginia or anything) is .469.
So, potentially, playing MORE regional games means playing worse ones.
To expand the point further, going out to 200 miles, the average non-conference, in-region opponent Calvin could have potentially faced has a .375 winning percentage. Out to 300 miles it's still only .441 (boosted by OWU and Wooster both being 290-300 miles away).
I know teams around the country (particularly out west and in the south) have to drive to find games, but does the NCAA consider this or do they rigidly hold to the SOS number while eschewing hard selection metrics that they'd have to rigidly hold to?
A reasonable argument can be made that the only reason Machester was on Calvin's schedule this year was because of the need (real or imagined) for more in-region games. That's a mighty weight around the neck right now.
And it's not like Calvin went out and tried to play an easy schedule. I went back and found this in the season preview:
"We play about as good of a nonconference schedule as anyone in the country," Vande Streek said. "We have gotten away from the NAIA schools. The NCAA has put the pressure on us to play in region games. We have to play 70 percent of our games in region."
Like KS said elsewhere, with Calvin's current regional ranking, the NCAA is basically saying they never had a chance to be ranked any higher because of the schedule.
Could this be an anomalous year for some of those teams?
You are considering RHIT and Transylvania, correct? It's probably easier to get to Transy than Hanover...
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine. I don't agree, but I can buy it. It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games. That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.
Really, the difference between 22-3 and 21-4 is insignificant at best. But when you throw in the big advantage Wooster has in SOS over Calvin, it's hard not to see why Wooster is #1. The part that confounds me is why Calvin's total résumé isn't good enough to have them ranked higher than they are.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 19, 2013, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine. I don't agree, but I can buy it. It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games. That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.
Really, the difference between 22-3 and 21-4 is insignificant at best. But when you throw in the big advantage Wooster has in SOS over Calvin, it's hard not to see why Wooster is #1. The part that confounds me is why Calvin's total résumé isn't good enough to have them ranked higher than they are.
But based on the criteria, who should Calvin be higher than, and why?
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
I'm not saying a disagree necessarily, but I guess I'm looking for a more criteria-based opinion.
The more I have looked at the numbers in the last week or so, the more I have come to realize the challenge Calvin has with the criteria.
Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2013, 04:55:18 PM
Could this be an anomalous year for some of those teams?
You are considering RHIT and Transylvania, correct? It's probably easier to get to Transy than Hanover...
In the total number, yes, not in the "within 300 miles number".
Anomalous is a good word for it. Three opponents that Calvin has played: Wabash, Anderson, and Manchester are a combined 20-50 in regional play after combining 42-34 last year. If those numbers held we won't be having this discussion (even if Calvin lost two of those games).
Has anyone received any word on why Hope's in-region record was incorrect again last week?
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2013, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 19, 2013, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine. I don't agree, but I can buy it. It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games. That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.
Really, the difference between 22-3 and 21-4 is insignificant at best. But when you throw in the big advantage Wooster has in SOS over Calvin, it's hard not to see why Wooster is #1. The part that confounds me is why Calvin's total résumé isn't good enough to have them ranked higher than they are.
But based on the criteria, who should Calvin be higher than, and why?
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
I'm not saying a disagree necessarily, but I guess I'm looking for a more criteria-based opinion.
The more I have looked at the numbers in the last week or so, the more I have come to realize the challenge Calvin has with the criteria.
It all depends on how the criteria are weighed. This year, they seem to be (IMO) over-weighting SOS. I would place Calvin 3rd, as their W% should outweigh relatively modest SOS deficits to the current 3, 4, and 5. SOS and WvRRO are only partially under a team's control - if Calvin's opponents had played more to their recent histories, this conversation would be unnecessary (and lack of RROs is in large part
because Calvin beat Adrian and Hope!).
It's still probably easier to get from Grand Rapids to Lexington or Terre Haute than some of the more 'scenic' places within 300 miles. Thomas More and Mt. St. Joe's are in the Cincy area.
I'm not saying it easy to schedule and definitely the NCAA should look at an exception for the MI / Northern Illinois area (I KNOW there are boundaries, but it makes sense here to grant a tiny waiver) but a weekend playing at Thomas More and Transylvania or Rose Hulman and DPU or Wabash would help Calvin.
Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2013, 05:46:32 PMI'm not saying it easy to schedule and definitely the NCAA should look at an exception for the MI / Northern Illinois area (I KNOW there are boundaries, but it makes sense here to grant a tiny waiver) but a weekend playing at Thomas More and Transylvania or Rose Hulman and DPU or Wabash would help Calvin.
There's no need for the NCAA to grant an exception. All it needs to do is to add a rule that schools from contiguous states are automatically in-region. Illinois and Michigan share a border. It runs right through the middle of the southern part of Lake Michigan.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
Has anyone received any word on why Hope's in-region record was incorrect again last week?
From what I have been told, the information about Hope was correct for the committee - correct wins as noted here for them and Covenant. Why that data wasn't correct on the SOS sheets we see is not known. Whether the SOS numbers the committee saw are flawed because the data sheet we saw is wrong... I don't know. However, I was assured that the committee is apparently looking at the correct information which was corrected from previous versions.
Not to break up the party, but there are quite a few tournament games tonight. At least in conferences that actually have tournaments involving more than 4 teams
OAC
#8 Otterbein at #4 Mt. Union http://athletics.mountunion.edu/sports/mbkb/index
#6 Ohio Northern at #3 Wilmington http://www.wilmington.edu/mens-basketball/
NCAC http://www2.northcoast.org/mbasketball/NCACTournament/2013
#8 Oberlin at #1 Wooster
#5 Wittenberg at #4 DePauw
#6 Wabash at #3 Kenyon
#7 Denison at #2 Ohio Wesleyan
as I type this the 5/4 and 6/3 games have already started
PAC
livestats and stuff at the bottom of the schedule page
http://www.pacathletics.org/calendar.aspx?path=mbball&season=2012-13&
#8 Waynesburg at #1 St. Vincent
#5 Grove City at #4 Thiel
#6 Wash & Jeff at #3 Bethany
#7 Geneva at #2 Thomas More
AMCC
#6 Pitt-Bradford at #3 PSU-Behrend http://www.psblions.com/sports/mbkb/2012-13/schedule
Results
OAC
#4 Mt. Union 66 #8 Otterbein 60
#3 Wilmington 71 #6 Ohio Northern 49
NCAC
#1 Wooster 74 #8 Oberlin 47
#5 Wittenberg 63 #4 DePauw 62
#3 Kenyon 77 #6 Wabash 72
#2 Ohio Wesleyan 77 #7 Denison 56
PAC
#2 Thomas More 82 #7 Geneva 60
#6 Wash & Jeff 70 #3 Bethany 64
#4 Thiel 57 #5 Grove City 44
#1 St. Vincent 72 #8 Waynesburg 62
AMCC
#3 PSU-Behrend 63 #6 Pitt-Bradford 42
Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.
Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.
Thursday's Semi Finals
MIAA
#4 Adrian at #1 Calvin
#3 Trine at #2 Hope
OAC
#4 Mt. Union at #1 Capital
#3 Wilmington at #2 Marietta
PAC - (reseeds)
#6 Wash & Jeff at #1 St. Vincent
#4 Thiel at #2 Thomas More
Friday Semi-Finals
NCAC at Wooster
#5 Wittenberg at #1 Wooster
#3 Kenyon vs #2 Ohio Wesleyan
AMCC at Hilbert
#3 PSU-Behrend vs #2 LaRoche
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 09:40:54 PM
Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.
Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.
All of St. Vincent's games have been pretty close, lots of single-digit wins. Their only meeting against a top 'power' conference opponent, Va Wesleyan, they lost by 25 in the first game of the season.
http://athletics.stvincent.edu/schedule.aspx?path=mbball
On another note, their pbp guy is excellent.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 09:40:54 PM
Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.
Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.
You sound like an SEC fan slagging the Mountain West. ;) " By gosh Alabama would CRUSH New Mexico! And Vanderbilt would KILL Boise State! I saw 'em play! I DID!"
I kid because I love....can't make those assumptions - you know that as a DATA man. Unless you've become an Enos Cabell / David Eckstein fan! ;)
Also, remember - EARLHAM BEAT ROSE HULMAN THIS YEAR!
Oh, and also, the often denigrated, never venerated MANCHESTER (especially by the Calvin partisans) beat TRANSYLVANIA IN LEXINGTON!
So...um...yeah...be certain with that pick...
Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2013, 10:06:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2013, 09:40:54 PM
Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.
Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.
You sound like an SEC fan slagging the Mountain West. ;) " By gosh Alabama would CRUSH New Mexico! And Vanderbilt would KILL Boise State! I saw 'em play! I DID!"
I kid because I love....can't make those assumptions - you know that as a DATA man. Unless you've become an Enos Cabell / David Eckstein fan! ;)
Also, remember - EARLHAM BEAT ROSE HULMAN THIS YEAR!
Oh, and also, the often denigrated, never venerated MANCHESTER (especially by the Calvin partisans) beat TRANSYLVANIA IN LEXINGTON!
So...um...yeah...be certain with that pick...
Right, given a large number of games the average result would be a comfortable win for Calvin.
Massey says Calvin by double digits on a neutral floor.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2013, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 19, 2013, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine. I don't agree, but I can buy it. It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games. That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.
Really, the difference between 22-3 and 21-4 is insignificant at best. But when you throw in the big advantage Wooster has in SOS over Calvin, it's hard not to see why Wooster is #1. The part that confounds me is why Calvin's total résumé isn't good enough to have them ranked higher than they are.
But based on the criteria, who should Calvin be higher than, and why?
1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
I'm not saying a disagree necessarily, but I guess I'm looking for a more criteria-based opinion.
The more I have looked at the numbers in the last week or so, the more I have come to realize the challenge Calvin has with the criteria.
As others have noted, it just depends on how you apply the criteria. The reason why we have committees of people and not just an algorithm ranking teams (no offense, KS...your algorithm rules) is to apply a common sense correction factor when the raw statistics don't tell a complete story. I think this is a clear case where the RAC is failing to properly use that oversight.
Based on the criteria, I think Calvin should be ranked first. They've won 95% of their in-region games and they have very favorable results vs. common opponents amongst this group (as you would expect when you've only lost one in-region game). When I pick out Calvin's apples and compare them to the apples of the rest of the group, Calvin is the top team in the region. With 20 games to look at and a 95% win pct, I hesitate to penalize Calvin for not having played any RROs. That's not having not beaten any RROs...that's not having played any. That's just unlucky and I don't think you can hammer a team for that.
Really, it's a moot point as long as Calvin is selected to play in the tournament should they not qualify automatically. They'll probably get jobbed on seeding and/or hosting, but that's how that goes. The travesty is if they wind up 18-2 or 19-2 and don't even get an invitation. That would be a bad day for this system.
Just for my curiosity, would KS or someone be willing to take Calvin's exact schedule this year and replace the Finlandia and Manchester games (which I'm certain were only scheduled to get more in-regions games which folks have been saying KVS should do more of) with one or two of the top teams in the 'region' (GL region or whatever counts as in-region game).
Assume Calvin loses both of these games for the sake of argument. How would the GL rankings look 'according to the criteria established for regional rankings -- the same criteria that is being discussed here at length.
Based on the results of this, I'm wondering if scheduling crappy in-region teams is really a good idea.
Second, I'm wondering if just scheduling one or two really tough, in-region games will make a difference for the situation that Calvin finds itself in. I mean, if one game would make a difference -- that's worth knowing. If, on the other hand, Calvin would need to have scheduled 5 tough, in-region games (replacing 5 weak teams) -- clearly KVS or any other coach in his shoes could not have arranged that.
Finally, for my own satisfaction, I'd just like to know if Calvin, using this screwed up regional ranking system, could have lost more games and been ranked higher.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to do this. My apologies if this was already done.
First off... with their current schedule and SOS... losing more games would have them out of the regional rankings... period.
Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.
As for the comment about the committee using the human, common sense factor to understand the data... remember one thing, the committee can't use factors that are not in the criteria. So the "I know they are better than them because I just know it" just can't be used as a criteria... unless they look at it through the criteria and can make an argument accordingly.
This system isn't knew... and remember it changes a lot next year!
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 11:53:06 AM
First off... with their current schedule and SOS... losing more games would have them out of the regional rankings... period.
I really don't think you read calvinite's post
Just for my curiosity, would KS or someone be willing to take Calvin's exact schedule this year and replace the Finlandia and Manchester games (which I'm certain were only scheduled to get more in-regions games which folks have been saying KVS should do more of) with one or two of the top teams in the 'region' (GL region or whatever counts as in-region game).
I did read his post, but concentrated more on this aspect:
Quote from: calvinite on February 20, 2013, 11:28:33 AM
Finally, for my own satisfaction, I'd just like to know if Calvin, using this screwed up regional ranking system, could have lost more games and been ranked higher.
And my comment here does cover both thoughts:
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 11:53:06 AM
Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.
In other words... playing a number of regional opponents that don't help your SOS but only help your WP... versus playing teams that will boost your SOS while maybe giving you one or two more blemishes doesn't work. Play the more challenging teams for an SOS boost as long as you don't go an lose 6, 7, or whatever games. If Calvin has a stronger SOS with one or two more losses, they would look better on the criteria because really only one of their criteria is taking a "hit" versus three or more as they stand now.
I also know we are beating on Calvin and that isn't fair. This is something at least one program in every region is dealing with almost every year... so this isn't something unfamiliar to these regional committees.
There are really two issues at play in regards to the Calvin/SOS debate.
Yes, Calvin has a terrible SOS and the committee has to consider that in the way they best determine given the criteria. That is perfectly legitimate. Reasonable people can have a disagreement here.
But Dave, you never addressed the fact (or I missed it) that Calvin could have improved their SOS by playing Finlandia and Manchester at home instead of on the road. That is counter to the entire point of SOS and an issue that is beyond forgivable.
Getting hammered by SOS is one thing, getting hammered by SOS when the entire method is flawed is another.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 11:53:06 AM
Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.
Yes and yes. However, you can't possibly know one or two years out that the team you're putting on the schedule is going to wind up with a good record (OWP) or play a schedule against teams with good records (OOWP) or ever win enough games to be regionally ranked. You just can't know that in advance. Do we think Calvin saw Wabash as a 9-17 team when they put the game on the schedule? Doubtful. So it just isn't as easy as saying "schedule top teams". Yes, there are some teams that you can usually count on to be perennially good. But there just aren't an abundance of those teams and I don't think it always works to dial up Good Hoops U. and order up a home and home. There is enough year-over-year turnover in who is going to post a good record and be ranked that you just can't plan on scheduling better teams. Your SOS and opportunities for RRO games are luck of the draw, aren't they?
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 11:53:06 AM
As for the comment about the committee using the human, common sense factor to understand the data... remember one thing, the committee can't use factors that are not in the criteria. So the "I know they are better than them because I just know it" just can't be used as a criteria... unless they look at it through the criteria and can make an argument accordingly.
I wouldn't ask the committees to go rogue and invent their own criteria. There is subjective latitude built in to how they apply the criteria and that's where I think you can keep things right. Calvin has a stronger regional win percentage and favorable results versus common opponents as compared to the top-ranked Wooster. Wooster has 3 wins over RROs, which doubles as a boost to their SOS as you alluded to ( there's some of the double counting that KS has mentioned before), while Calvin has zero wins over RROs. But Calvin didn't play any RROs, so we can't say that Calvin wouldn't win 3 out of 4 games against RROs. If Calvin were 0-2 or 0-3 vs. RROs, it's a different story and much clearer that Wooster should be given priority. I think the human brains in the room can look at this and say that no results do not equate to negative results and then rank Calvin appropriately. That thought process, I believe, is fair and doesn't color outside the lines.
Quote from: ziggy on February 20, 2013, 12:24:42 PM
There are really two issues at play in regards to the Calvin/SOS debate.
Yes, Calvin has a terrible SOS and the committee has to consider that in the way they best determine given the criteria. That is perfectly legitimate. Reasonable people can have a disagreement here.
But Dave, you never addressed the fact (or I missed it) that Calvin could have improved their SOS by playing Finlandia and Manchester at home instead of on the road. That is counter to the entire point of SOS and an issue that is beyond forgivable.
Getting hammered by SOS is one thing, getting hammered by SOS when the entire method is flawed is another.
ziggy - I have no comments to that affect... ask a coach. All I know from talking to coaches who seem to understand the system pretty well... you have to play the system. If that means playing a sub-par team at home and a superior team on the road... I guess that is how you work the system. There are a lot of systems out there that are flawed or not... and those who succeed seem to understand the system and make it work for them.
This isn't a perfect reference since they are struggling this year more than usual, but I found it very interesting this year that F&M decided to challenge themselves in non-conference road games. Last year they were criticized for playing one non-conference team on the road and it was down the street against an average or below-average them. This year they went to St. Mary's (third year of a home-and-home series that has materialized) and went on the road to play Transylvania and Wooster had they won. It isn't a major difference and the Transy game is secondary criteria, but it told me that they are starting to understand the system in place and are trying to adjust accordingly. Some coaches have caught on very quickly and others have not - or they have fallen victim to circumstances they can not control.
It will be very interesting next year to see coaches adjust once again to a more open field of games that can count. Just imagine that those games Calvin has against CCIW teams all counting and what that could have done to their SOS scenario this year.
And wally - I totally understand your point about scheduling. However, I also have talked to coaches as recently as this week who do their research and if they see a team who is pretty solid is going to lose a lot of contributors a year or two down the road because of graduation (i.e. Wabash)... they consider that. They may still schedule them because they are playing into the x-factor that the team they are considering may or may not be known to reload or because they need the game anyway. I don't think anyone gets the schedule they really want so they can take advantage of it... but I do get the sense that at least some coaches are considering the possibilities and ramifications. We have been in this system long enough I think coaches are getting it.
(Heck, one coach gave me the argument that they would considering scheduling my alma mater who hasn't had a good season in about ten years, but knows that their coach has put together some really good teams in the past and can do it again - so they would consider gambling on that. I did chuckle :)).
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Quote from: calvinite on February 20, 2013, 11:28:33 AM
Just for my curiosity, would KS or someone be willing to take Calvin's exact schedule this year and replace the Finlandia and Manchester games (which I'm certain were only scheduled to get more in-regions games which folks have been saying KVS should do more of) with one or two of the top teams in the 'region' (GL region or whatever counts as in-region game).
Assume Calvin loses both of these games for the sake of argument. How would the GL rankings look 'according to the criteria established for regional rankings -- the same criteria that is being discussed here at length.
Based on the results of this, I'm wondering if scheduling crappy in-region teams is really a good idea.
Second, I'm wondering if just scheduling one or two really tough, in-region games will make a difference for the situation that Calvin finds itself in. I mean, if one game would make a difference -- that's worth knowing. If, on the other hand, Calvin would need to have scheduled 5 tough, in-region games (replacing 5 weak teams) -- clearly KVS or any other coach in his shoes could not have arranged that.
Finally, for my own satisfaction, I'd just like to know if Calvin, using this screwed up regional ranking system, could have lost more games and been ranked higher.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to do this. My apologies if this was already done.
Yeah, so losing to Wooster and Ohio Wesleyan instead of beating Finlandia and Manchester would put Calvin at roughly .842/.503
Wow... that is a bigger jump than I would have expected to the SOS! I thought it would have gone up - but .06 or so is pretty impressive. Very interesting.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:05:00 PM
Yeah, so losing to Wooster and Ohio Wesleyan instead of beating Finlandia and Manchester would put Calvin at roughly .842/.503
Playing St. Vincent or Thomas More would give you a better SOS than playing Wooster. ::)
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
I was wondering if hostages might start to be taken... I will admit, #6 seems low. I would have had them at #5 compared to what we have known already... but I have to dive into the criteria more to maybe figure it out.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
I was wondering if hostages might start to be taken... I will admit, #6 seems low. I would have had them at #5 compared to what we have known already... but I have to dive into the criteria more to maybe figure it out.
Not even talking about Calvin anymore.
Thomas more has a better WP, SOS, more "results" versus regionally ranked opponents, and a 1-1 head-to-head record with St. Vincent. But they're behind them.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
I was wondering if hostages might start to be taken... I will admit, #6 seems low. I would have had them at #5 compared to what we have known already... but I have to dive into the criteria more to maybe figure it out.
Not even talking about Calvin anymore.
Thomas more has a better WP, SOS, more "results" versus regionally ranked opponents, and a 1-1 head-to-head record with St. Vincent. But they're behind them.
I'd like to say that a Hoopsville segment in which a committee member walks through a specific set of rankings and lays out the rationale behind would be amazing but I fear it would actually be far more infuriating.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
I was wondering if hostages might start to be taken... I will admit, #6 seems low. I would have had them at #5 compared to what we have known already... but I have to dive into the criteria more to maybe figure it out.
Not even talking about Calvin anymore.
Thomas more has a better WP, SOS, more "results" versus regionally ranked opponents, and a 1-1 head-to-head record with St. Vincent. But they're behind them.
Also, based on the Capital-Calvin-Hope ranking:
1. Capital is giving up .121 in the WP to Calvin but has a .046 SOS advantage and a 1-2 to 0-0 vRRO advantage
2. Hope is giving up 0.089 in the WP to Capital but has a 0.46 SOS advantage and a 1-3 to 1-2 vRRO advantage
1-1 vRRO (vs. unranked Marietta, even) must carry more weight than .032 points of WP.
Well... the challenge there would be that is one committee member's point of view. The reason there are several and conference calls take so long is they are discussing those decisions with everyone's point of view on the table. That usually leads to a lot of point, counter-point and decisions made accordingly.
I have thought about doing it, but even the chairs have resisted probably because they understand that a) that is their point of view between Team A and Team B... b) there could be other points of view that may change their minds... and c) they as one person don't want to sway other people from reading the data themselves and having a healthy conversation about it.
Just my opinion on it though... you never know.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I can't even...
I'm not even mad any more. I'm actually impressed.
I was wondering if hostages might start to be taken... I will admit, #6 seems low. I would have had them at #5 compared to what we have known already... but I have to dive into the criteria more to maybe figure it out.
Not even talking about Calvin anymore.
Thomas more has a better WP, SOS, more "results" versus regionally ranked opponents, and a 1-1 head-to-head record with St. Vincent. But they're behind them.
St. Vincent has a slight edge in common opponents: 14-0 vs. 13-1. Also has two more results vs. RRO in the secondary criteria.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:24:04 PM
Well... the challenge there would be that is one committee member's point of view. The reason there are several and conference calls take so long is they are discussing those decisions with everyone's point of view on the table. That usually leads to a lot of point, counter-point and decisions made accordingly.
I have thought about doing it, but even the chairs have resisted probably because they understand that a) that is their point of view between Team A and Team B... b) there could be other points of view that may change their minds... and c) they as one person don't want to sway other people from reading the data themselves and having a healthy conversation about it.
Just my opinion on it though... you never know.
I completely understand that and I would probably be just as reluctant as the people you have interacted with. I was just thinking that while an individual certainly has his or her own opinions, he or she would also be aware of the discussion at large and based on that would be able to offer an overall explanation.
Yeah - good thought ziggy... maybe one day I can figure out a way to do it without also being too specific. Usually on Match-Up Monday's show.. we get a little of that when talking about the last teams in.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Quick recap of this week's GL region conference call....
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspinachinourteeth.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fhead-in-the-sand.jpg&hash=b58c41b9e26100d0acc7c2f9e3557de4ca178bd5)
This is what I find ironic. For years I've read posts on D3 Hoops arguing that MIAA teams need to play more in-region games. NOT JUST CALVIN, but MIAA teams in general. So this year Calvin does that.
In any event, from where I sit, Calvin needed to play tougher competition. Ideally, Calvin needed to play several regionally ranked teams. While I don't know much about scheduling college basketball games, I'd bet my last dollar that it's not so EASY to just call up a team and set up a game EVEN IF YOU KNOW THAT TEAM WILL BE RANKED IN A YEAR (which you can't know -- even with research). Just look at the surprises in the MIAA this year.
BUT MY POINT IS THIS..... Knowing what I know now, I would have told VandeStreek to schedule tough teams -- EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT IN-REGION TEAMS. This year's schedule is definitely SOFTER than most other years, and it's because of the in-region games. We are better off forgetting the POOL C bids which RARELY happen help Calvin anyway, and when they do happen, the seeding is just pathetic. INSTEAD, get your team ready by playing teams like Western Michigan like Hope has done several times, play the Davneport Universties and the Cornerstones, and teams offering scholarships that are consistently better than virtually ALL of the regional teams within 300 miles of Grand Rapids (except possibly Hope, but I put Hope and Calvin about equal to Cornerstone, Aquinas, and Davenport). Play tough competition to make sure you are ready for any post season play that you might take part in.
Calvin might get into the tournament this year, but I don't think they are as ready for real tough teams as they were when they played tougher schedules with fewer in-region games.
Whether or not this changes next year, time will tell. I also watched all of the St. Vincent game last night. I see these rankings, and I just shake my head. St. Vincent might deserve the higher regional ranking, but I would LOVE to see Calvin play St. Vincent. I salivate just thinking about it.
Yes, it is a year where Calvin got on board. It's not always going to be like that.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 20, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Quick recap of this week's GL region conference call....
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspinachinourteeth.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fhead-in-the-sand.jpg&hash=b58c41b9e26100d0acc7c2f9e3557de4ca178bd5)
I was thinking they made macaroni necklaces or something.
Seriously though, what interest me in this the fact that Jody May is on the committee and would bring a good perspective on Calvin's conflicting resume items. Between conference play, Manchester, Wabash and North Park, he's guided a team through a very similar schedule. It seems he is either not trumpeting Calvin's WP as an accomplishment or he is getting ignored. Not to say he has to be a banner carrier, just that it's an interesting dynamic. Oh to be a fly on that wall.
Well ultimately they do vote individually online... so he could use that to push Calvin higher, potentially. Then again, the national committee could come in and say... uh... no.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:48:37 PM
Well ultimately they do vote individually online... so he could use that to push Calvin higher, potentially. Then again, the national committee could come in and say... uh... no.
I didn't mean elevate Calvin in an artificial sense at all. I mean in terms of adding to a discussion regarding how to evaluate the second-best in-region win percentage in Division III vs. an SOS in the bottom 10%.
I've always felt the criteria such as SOS and games vs RRO was supposed to separate teams that were close in winning %.
Its not being used like that, its being used to trump winning percentages, that's very frustrating.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
I've always felt the criteria such as SOS and games vs RRO was supposed to separate teams that were close in winning %.
Its not being used like that, its being used to trump winning percentages, that's very frustrating.
The handbook is clear that all five primary criteria are given equal consideration. The issue is that the committee is effectively considering Calvin's WP ordinary given the poor SOS and lack of RvRRO and I don't believe that to be accurate.
Quote from: ziggy on February 20, 2013, 02:24:46 PM
The handbook is clear that all five primary criteria are given equal consideration. The issue is that the committee is effectively considering Calvin's WP ordinary given the poor SOS and lack of RvRRO and I don't believe that to be accurate.
And there is, as always, the crux of it. It's their opinion that it is.
And the discussion continues to discount secondary criteria, which are not helpful to Calvin either.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
I've always felt the criteria such as SOS and games vs RRO was supposed to separate teams that were close in winning %.
Its not being used like that, its being used to trump winning percentages, that's very frustrating.
Yes, yes, yes. All of this.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
I've always felt the criteria such as SOS and games vs RRO was supposed to separate teams that were close in winning %.
Its not being used like that, its being used to trump winning percentages, that's very frustrating.
But to be honest... no where in the criteria does it read that the SOS and the vRRO is supposed to be used to separate teams with close WPs. They are all criteria and used accordingly.
In football, where the limited number of games means we have a bunch of teams with similar/identical records, it does often work out that way. I'm not sure it's been that cut-and-dried in basketball, though.
A couple of final-public rankings from this region in past years:
2012
1 Hope 16-0 24-1
2 Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
3 Wooster 19-4 21-4
4 Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
5 Bethany 21-2 22-3
6 John Carroll 15-6 18-6
2011
1 Wooster 23-2 26-2
2 Marietta 22-3 25-3
3 Hope 18-2 22-6
4 Penn State-Behrend 23-3 23-4
5 Wittenberg 16-6 19-8
6 Wabash 19-6 20-6
2010 (this is the selection ranking, the one year they published it)
1. Wooster 23-4 23-5
2. Hope 16-3 21-7
3. Wilmington (Ohio) 20-6 21-7
4. John Carroll 18-6 20-6
5. Calvin 15-4 19-9
6. Wittenberg 17-7 21-7
2009
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6
2008 (back when I used to go back and insert OWP and OOWP)
1. Hope 21-3 15-2 .508 .494
2. Capital 21-4 20-4 .528 .524
3. Wooster 22-3 15-2 .484 .490
4. Heidelberg 20-5 18-4 .519 .521
5. Penn State-Behrend 21-4 19-3 .466 .492
6. Albion 18-5 14-3 .476 .496
2007
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19-1
2. Wooster 22-3 17-2
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6
4. Hope 21-3 14-3
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4
I don't think there's a pattern that suggests winning percentage is a stronger primary criterion than the rest.
The more I hear and read the NCAA defended the more it becomes apparent this is a very fallible system used by equally fallible people. Hard to defend a system that includes criteria that are so mallable they can be used to defend whatever decsion one person or a group of people choose to make. :)
Quote from: realist on February 20, 2013, 03:33:26 PM
The more I hear and read the NCAA defended the more it becomes apparent this is a very fallible system used by equally fallible people. Hard to defend a system that includes criteria that are so mallable they can be used to defend whatever decsion one person or a group of people choose to make. :)
So it's like any other tournament selection process. Not a surprise there. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: realist on February 20, 2013, 03:33:26 PM
The more I hear and read the NCAA defended the more it becomes apparent this is a very fallible system used by equally fallible people. Hard to defend a system that includes criteria that are so mallable they can be used to defend whatever decsion one person or a group of people choose to make. :)
So it's like any other tournament selection process. Not a surprise there. :)
Perhaps it is the arrogant, holier than thou, self righteous attitude of the NCAA that insists in proclaiming it is above or beyond reproach that some of us find galling. ;) ;)
Quote from: realist on February 20, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: realist on February 20, 2013, 03:33:26 PM
The more I hear and read the NCAA defended the more it becomes apparent this is a very fallible system used by equally fallible people. Hard to defend a system that includes criteria that are so mallable they can be used to defend whatever decsion one person or a group of people choose to make. :)
So it's like any other tournament selection process. Not a surprise there. :)
Perhaps it is the arrogant, holier than thou, self righteous attitude of the NCAA that insists in proclaiming it is above or beyond reproach that some of us find galling. ;) ;)
This process is so unbelievably far removed from the attitude you describe (you know, Division I enforcement) that it's not even funny.
If Calvin had beaten Wheaton and Carthage, this discussion would be exactly the same. Calvin would be 24-1, probably ranked in the top 2 or 3 teams in the nation in both D3hoops and Massey Ratings, yet still ranked #6 in Great Lakes region and still unsure if we could land a Pool C bid under the current system in the event of a loss in the conference tourney.
Also, why do the NCAA regional rankings start when they do? Why not earlier in the season? Why not later? This has a profound impact. If they started earlier, Adrian would likely have been ranked at some point. That would have a ripple effect for Calvin and Hope, which would probably be ranked higher in later polls due to having played and beaten Adrian. Calvin would then sport a 3-1 record vs "regionally ranked opponents" and the whole discussion is different. Also, if the rankings were only done at the end of the season, other teams would not be receiving "credit" for having beaten an opponent who snuck in to an earlier regional ranking, thus opening the door for Calvin and Hope. Seems like this year, the NCAA regional rankings started at precisely the wrong time for Calvin (and Hope).
Such arbitrary rules that have little to do with how good a team actually is, but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
The regional rankings come out as they do for two reasons from everything multiple people tell me:
- The data earlier in the year is more flawed since we have only run through the conference maybe once (or just starting the second time) and the smaller number of games gives a wider variance in the SOS numbers.
- Too early and teams that probably don't deserve to be regionally ranked in the grand scheme of things would be ranked because their SOS numbers might be more gaudy then they would turn out to be later in the year - or even two weeks later.
I am sure there are more details I am forgetting... but it is a question I am pretty sure I have asked committee chairs over the years on Hoopsville - and if I haven't, I have asked in person or on phone calls and just thought I did it on Hoopsville.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
Calvin won their league, did it impressively, and lost but one single in-region game out of 19. Probably 20 before getting into the make or break MIAA tournament title game against Hope (probably). Are we really saying that 18-2 or 19-2 isn't good enough to make it? Because given the way at-large selection works and where Calvin sits in the rankings BEFORE the hypothetical loss that would put them into Pool C, I think the possibility of this team not being part of the tournament is very real. Which would be embarrassing for the selection committee. The Knights have done plenty to be in without having to sweat out everybody else's league tournament.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 20, 2013, 04:01:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
Calvin won their league, did it impressively, and lost but one single in-region game out of 19. Probably 20 before getting into the make or break MIAA tournament title game against Hope (probably). Are we really saying that 18-2 or 19-2 isn't good enough to make it? Because given the way at-large selection works and where Calvin sits in the rankings BEFORE the hypothetical loss that would put them into Pool C, I think the possibility of this team not being part of the tournament is very real. Which would be embarrassing for the selection committee. The Knights have done plenty to be in without having to sweat out everybody else's league tournament.
The turnaround to this is to say that the MIAA chooses how to award the AQ and have chosen to do so through a tournament rather than the conference regular season.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
...and there's the trump card played by anyone who ever wanted to end this discussion. Using that logic, why even bother designing a good Pool C methodology? Why even have a Pool C?
Quote from: ziggy on February 20, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 20, 2013, 04:01:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
Calvin won their league, did it impressively, and lost but one single in-region game out of 19. Probably 20 before getting into the make or break MIAA tournament title game against Hope (probably). Are we really saying that 18-2 or 19-2 isn't good enough to make it? Because given the way at-large selection works and where Calvin sits in the rankings BEFORE the hypothetical loss that would put them into Pool C, I think the possibility of this team not being part of the tournament is very real. Which would be embarrassing for the selection committee. The Knights have done plenty to be in without having to sweat out everybody else's league tournament.
The turnaround to this is to say that the MIAA chooses how to award the AQ and have chosen to do so through a tournament rather than the conference regular season.
Right, but unfortunately and for reasons that don't exist anywhere near a base of logic, every single conference (with one or two exceptions) has decided to let two or three games in February trump 25 games from mid-November through Valentine's Day. It's senseless and the people that run the leagues are all smart enough to know better, but we keep on doing it because, well, that's just the way we do it.
So we have a universe where league tournaments offer a prize that it is not proportional to the accomplishment. The discussion here is how to best handle those who get put out by the league tournaments, and it doesn't seem like we're handling Calvin's case in a way that makes sense.
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 04:11:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
...and there's the trump card played by anyone who ever wanted to end this discussion. Using that logic, why even bother designing a good Pool C methodology? Why even have a Pool C?
Well, honestly, playing the "these kids work hard" card ought to be followed by the "AQ" card. :)
Agreed that the committee is not valuing Calvin's resume the way we'd like but nobody ever wants to leave their fate in the hands of a committee anyway.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:31:24 PM
In football, where the limited number of games means we have a bunch of teams with similar/identical records, it does often work out that way. I'm not sure it's been that cut-and-dried in basketball, though.
A couple of final-public rankings from this region in past years:
2012
1 Hope 16-0 24-1
2 Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
3 Wooster 19-4 21-4
4 Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
5 Bethany 21-2 22-3
6 John Carroll 15-6 18-6
2011
1 Wooster 23-2 26-2
2 Marietta 22-3 25-3
3 Hope 18-2 22-6
4 Penn State-Behrend 23-3 23-4
5 Wittenberg 16-6 19-8
6 Wabash 19-6 20-6
2010 (this is the selection ranking, the one year they published it)
1. Wooster 23-4 23-5
2. Hope 16-3 21-7
3. Wilmington (Ohio) 20-6 21-7
4. John Carroll 18-6 20-6
5. Calvin 15-4 19-9
6. Wittenberg 17-7 21-7
2009
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6
2008 (back when I used to go back and insert OWP and OOWP)
1. Hope 21-3 15-2 .508 .494
2. Capital 21-4 20-4 .528 .524
3. Wooster 22-3 15-2 .484 .490
4. Heidelberg 20-5 18-4 .519 .521
5. Penn State-Behrend 21-4 19-3 .466 .492
6. Albion 18-5 14-3 .476 .496
2007
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19-1
2. Wooster 22-3 17-2
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6
4. Hope 21-3 14-3
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4
I don't think there's a pattern that suggests winning percentage is a stronger primary criterion than the rest.
We're dealing with a small sample size and only one of the primary criteria and there are many factors -- so this is not proof of anything -- but here's a plot of WP vs. GL Rank from the historical data above (blue) and then this year (red). (Click to embiggen).
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-SnyFgnJVsoo%2FUSVEG-oJPaI%2FAAAAAAAABME%2FLep0008ABy4%2Fs1600%2FGL%2BRegional%2BRanks%2Band%2BWP.PNG&hash=e88b81267e6e705ed9ba8b98198ecdc0bb015035)
and we can run that through our supercomputer...
ENHANCE!
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-FHH1tgI5FjU%2FUSVFhGt4oLI%2FAAAAAAAABMQ%2FgjWQiJVXB58%2Fs1600%2FGL%2BRegional%2BRanks%2Band%2BWP%2B2.PNG&hash=95a54f28c2d4ded2f6e695c13e1f9e2e0287aa74)
Some of the winning percentages either (1) don't quite line up with their typical ranges or are (2) on the extreme end.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 04:47:47 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 04:11:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Happy Calvin Guy on February 20, 2013, 03:45:54 PM
... but yet have everything to do with postseason dreams for a bunch of hardworking 20 year olds.
... whom all control their own destiny, just like everyone in an AQ conference does every season.
...and there's the trump card played by anyone who ever wanted to end this discussion. Using that logic, why even bother designing a good Pool C methodology? Why even have a Pool C?
Well, honestly, playing the "these kids work hard" card ought to be followed by the "AQ" card. :)
Agreed that the committee is not valuing Calvin's resume the way we'd like but nobody ever wants to leave their fate in the hands of a committee anyway.
Sorry.
hardworking deserving. I never meant to imply that hard work alone merits a tournament bid. The task is to accurately identify what does.
We need an 80 team tournament, problem solved.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 05:46:05 PM
We need an 80 team tournament, problem solved.
I look forward to the day the tournament is big enough to spawn a "Bard Got Screwed" thread.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 20, 2013, 07:28:51 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2013, 05:46:05 PM
We need an 80 team tournament, problem solved.
I look forward to the day the tournament is big enough to spawn a "Bard Got Screwed" thread.
If it's Bard we'd be talking about, it'd probably be a "Bard Eram Fututum" thread.
Thursday's Semi Finals
MIAA......links at http://www.miaa.org/landing/index
#4 Adrian at #1 Calvin
#3 Trine at #2 Hope
OAC ........links on the schedule pages
#4 Mt. Union at #1 Capital http://www.capital.edu/mens-basketball-schedule/
#3 Wilmington at #2 Marietta http://pioneers.marietta.edu/schedule.aspx?path=mbball
PAC - (reseeds)
#6 Wash & Jeff at #1 St. Vincent http://athletics.stvincent.edu/schedule.aspx?path=mbball
#4 Thiel at #2 Thomas More http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2012-13/schedule
And the hits keep coming...Calvin being the lone GL team to get shipped out of the tidy little GL subquadrant not only doesn't get to host, but if they survive the Haute, then they get to go to Wisconsin and then either St. Thomas or Wheaton if they get that far. Blech. I don't know, maybe they would get to host Wheaton, but I wouldn't count on it.
As for the rest of the region, they get their own little knockout tournament on the other side of the bracket. Looks like Wooster came out smelling like roses with their first couple of games, but I wouldn't necessarily run them out to the regional semis just yet. Wooster wasn't particularly great in their last two games and are a little vulnerable I believe.
OWU probably has a roadie out to Virginia if they want to make the regional semis and that trip won't be easy at all. If they do get out to Hampden Sydney for a game, they'll need a little more of that Marsh madness that they got on Saturday to advance.
Good luck everybody...it's a tough field out there.
When I first read the bracket I thought Calvin was hosting. Ah. That trip to the Rosie's won't be easy. At. All. Fun fact - the most points RHIT gave up was 69 to Transylvania in one of their losses. The second most was 68 in their inexplicable loss to Earlham. Calvin better be prepared to slog it out in the 50's.
I can see Wooster stumbling to Marietta, perhaps. But I'm counting on a Wooster / OWU matchup myself.
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
When I first read the bracket I thought Calvin was hosting. Ah. That trip to the Rosie's won't be easy. At. All. Fun fact - the most points RHIT gave up was 69 to Transylvania in one of their losses. The second most was 68 in their inexplicable loss to Earlham. Calvin better be prepared to slog it out in the 50's.
I can see Wooster stumbling to Marietta, perhaps. But I'm counting on a Wooster / OWU matchup myself.
As long as Calvin knows they are in for an Adrian-style fight going in, I think they will be fine. Three games (well, at least two) against the Bulldogs this year should have them well prepared.
Calvin has played a pretty good brand of defensive ball themselves this year.
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
Calvin better be prepared to slog it out in the 50's.
Au contraire bonjour, it is, in fact, RHIT that better be prepared to slog it out -- doubt they (i.e. Rose-Hulman) will top
50!
Massey says Calvin is the favorite with a "most likely" score of 54-52.
RHIT is comfy there, though, as I see if from my non-homerific non-jaundiced eyes.
Just so you know... I suspect OWU stays at home vs. HSC... as OWU finished #2 in their region and HSC finished #5... granted the committee could change their minds and since Mike DeWitt can not participate in those discussions while his team is involved... you never know.
A couple weeks away from the first official rankings. Here's the in-region records taken off the d3hoops schedules. These are rife with accounting errors as there seems to be lots of confusion on what counts and what shouldn't. I've filled the blanks in where I could.
Pat has all the AMCC schools within the Great Lakes Region, this should up the number of ranking slots to 7. I assume this means that move is official now.
Wooster 13-0
St. Vincent 11-1
PSU-Behrend 13-2
Ohio Wesleyan 12-3
Wittenberg 12-3
Bethany 12-3
Mt. Union 12-3
Hilbert 12-3
Calvin 8-3**
DePauw 10-4
Marietta 10-4
LaRoche 10-4
John Carroll 10-5
Wilmington 8-5
Hope 8-5
Trine 8-5
Albion 7-6
** I can only assume Calvin believes they have an exemption to count all D3 games. Their actual in-region D3 games is less than the 70% needed to count all of them. If they don't have an exemption their regional record is 6-1
Wooster is pretty rock solid the #1 ranked team in this region. St. Vincent and PSU-Behrend aren't likely to have better overall criteria than Wooster even if Wooster accumulates 1 more loss than these two teams. In short, Wooster has a lot of cushion.
A lot of head-head match-ups remaining so losses will accumulate. I wouldn't rule out the 5 loss teams but they're in the territory of having to run the table. I imagine Hope and Wilmington will both have very good strength of schedule numbers.
Is KVS on the committee this year? Seems like I read or heard that somewhere, but can't find the info right now?
Nice work sac. I don't have the time or energy to fact check your numbers so I'll go with yours. :P
Agreed on Wooster being a pretty strong #1 as of now. Wooster already has two road wins over potentially regionally ranked teams in OWU and Witt and if 'Etta can put a run together, that number could grow to 3! I don't see another team in the GL Region who could match that...
Quote from: realist on January 22, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
Is KVS on the committee this year? Seems like I read or heard that somewhere, but can't find the info right now?
Yes. KVS is chair(man) of the Great Lakes Regional Advisory Committee. The role of the regional advisory committee is to assist the Division III Men's Basketball Committee in the evaluation of teams throughout the season in regional rankings, the evaluation of potential regional sites and the selection of teams for the championship.
Quote from: sac on January 22, 2014, 01:40:03 PM
Pat has all the AMCC schools within the Great Lakes Region, this should up the number of ranking slots to 7. I assume this means that move is official now.
If I'm remembering right the ratio is 6.5 to 1. With 49 teams including the AMCC we should get 7.5 teams ranked so round up to 8. ?
Also noted on another board, they've done away with once ranked always ranked, the only ranked teams you'll get an RRO for is in the final rankings......which we won't see.
The AMCC is now in the Great Lakes Region, but the rankings as per the handbook remains at 7 teams.
Remember that the vRRO will still be applicable every regional ranking week, but since it is "once ranked, always ranked" now the final regional rankings that are private will have vRRO we don't see. Also, if you play 70% of your games in region so all of your games count in the primary criteria - the vRRO will be reflected there as well.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
The AMCC is now in the Great Lakes Region, but the rankings as per the handbook remains at 7 teams.
We were at 6
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
Remember that the vRRO will still be applicable every regional ranking week, but since it is "once ranked, always ranked" now the final regional rankings that are private will have vRRO we don't see. Also, if you play 70% of your games in region so all of your games count in the primary criteria - the vRRO will be reflected there as well.
This is different than what you just posted 2 days ago on the Pool C board. ??
How is it different? If you play 70% of your games in region, all of your Division III games count... and thus your vRRO will reflect that as such dues to the fact you could play teams in other regions and that is a result versus a regionally ranked opponent potentially. That is actually as it always has been if the game was counted as regional under the other criteria.
Dave, I believe you meant to say it is NOT once ranked, always ranked. The bold part is what sac is referring to.
Sorry... I misread his question and my post... correct.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
The AMCC is now in the Great Lakes Region, but the rankings as per the handbook remains at 7 teams.
Remember that the vRRO will still be applicable every regional ranking week, but since it is "once ranked, always ranked" now the final regional rankings that are private will have vRRO we don't see. Also, if you play 70% of your games in region so all of your games count in the primary criteria - the vRRO will be reflected there as well.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:07:00 PM
The AMCC is now in the Great Lakes Region, but the rankings as per the handbook remains at 7 teams.
If I remember correctly, they've always used traditional rounding rules to determine the number of ranked teams in each region, so the GL should be at 8 this year.
This is true... though the handbook reads 49 schools and 7 bids... the 6.5 ratio gives us 7.538... so who knows.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
This is true... though the handbook reads 49 schools and 7 bids... the 6.5 ratio gives us 7.538... so who knows.
Ah, just got my first glance of the manual. Looks like they're ranking 15% (or a minimum of 6), so the 6.5 bracket ration no longer applies. I'm not sure why you'd do a minimum of six, however.
Quote from: oldknight on January 22, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: realist on January 22, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
Is KVS on the committee this year? Seems like I read or heard that somewhere, but can't find the info right now?
Yes. KVS is chair(man) of the Great Lakes Regional Advisory Committee. The role of the regional advisory committee is to assist the Division III Men's Basketball Committee in the evaluation of teams throughout the season in regional rankings, the evaluation of potential regional sites and the selection of teams for the championship.
Thanks.
Quote from: sac on January 22, 2014, 01:40:03 PM
A couple weeks away from the first official rankings. Here's the in-region records taken off the d3hoops schedules. These are rife with accounting errors as there seems to be lots of confusion on what counts and what shouldn't. I've filled the blanks in where I could.
Pat has all the AMCC schools within the Great Lakes Region, this should up the number of ranking slots to 7. I assume this means that move is official now.
Wooster 13-0
St. Vincent 11-1
PSU-Behrend 13-2
Ohio Wesleyan 12-3
Wittenberg 12-3
Bethany 12-3
Mt. Union 12-3
Hilbert 12-3
Calvin 8-3**
DePauw 10-4
Marietta 10-4
LaRoche 10-4
John Carroll 10-5
Wilmington 8-5
Hope 8-5
Trine 8-5
Albion 7-6
** I can only assume Calvin believes they have an exemption to count all D3 games. Their actual in-region D3 games is less than the 70% needed to count all of them. If they don't have an exemption their regional record is 6-1
Wooster is pretty rock solid the #1 ranked team in this region. St. Vincent and PSU-Behrend aren't likely to have better overall criteria than Wooster even if Wooster accumulates 1 more loss than these two teams. In short, Wooster has a lot of cushion.
A lot of head-head match-ups remaining so losses will accumulate. I wouldn't rule out the 5 loss teams but they're in the territory of having to run the table. I imagine Hope and Wilmington will both have very good strength of schedule numbers.
I spent some of my MLK Day working on calculating both in-region records and OWP for the top Great Lakes teams. My analysis isn't ready for prime time, but I will agree with both of these statements. Wooster's an extremely strong #1 in the GL right now...through Saturday's games their in-region OWP was .572, which seems like it would be among the top 10-15 OWPs in the region based on teams I calculated OWPs for, and would account for 2/3s of the strength of schedule rating. Sorry, no calculations on what their OOWP would be. St. Vincent, by comparison, had an OWP of .479. +100 points of OWP is a lot.
To sac's second point on Hope and Wilmington: Through Saturday's games I had Hope's OWP at .686, by *far* the best in the region (of the 2 dozen or so I calculated). Wilmington was at .557; Marietta a bit higher, actually, at .584.
I'll try to make progress on adding more of them so that I could provide periodic updates here as we move toward rankings.
Also, is the NCAA still doing the home-neutral-away weighting factors this year? 1.25 for away, 1.00 for neutral and 0.75 for home? Or was that discarded?
Went ahead and updated this through Wed. night's games. Bethany lost to Thomas More 82-74 in OT and Calvin beat Trine 71-49
Wooster 14-0
St. Vincent 12-1
PSU-Behrend 13-2
Ohio Wesleyan 13-3
Wittenberg 13-3
Mt. Union 13-3
Hilbert 12-3
Calvin 9-3**
Bethany 12-4
DePauw 11-4
Marietta 11-4
LaRoche 10-4
John Carroll 11-5
Wilmington 9-5
Hope 9-5
Trine 8-6
Albion 7-6
Two head-to-head games involving these teams this weekend.
Wooster at DePauw
Marietta at Wilmington
St. Vincent and Grove City not yet reporting, but otherwise this (should be) complete through Wednesday:
Rank Team Conf WP wSOS wRPI Natl NCWP NCSOS NCRPI Rank Pool D3 vRRO OVR
1 Wooster NCAC 1.000 0.539 0.654 5 1.000 0.535 0.651 18 A 14-0 0-0 15-1
2 Ohio WesleyanNCAC 0.813 0.543 0.610 24 0.857 0.551 0.628 32 C 13-3 0-0 13-3
3 Hope MIAA 0.643 0.599 0.610 25 0.556 0.663 0.636 28 A 9-5 0-0 10-6
4 DePauw NCAC 0.733 0.561 0.604 30 0.667 0.611 0.625 33 C 11-4 0-0 12-4
5 Marietta OAC 0.733 0.558 0.602 31 0.667 0.576 0.599 49 C 11-4 0-0 12-4
6 St. Vincent PrAC 0.917 0.489 0.596 36 0.800 0.530 0.598 50 A 11-1 0-0 14-2
7 Bethany PrAC 0.750 0.539 0.592 42 0.750 0.570 0.615 37 C 12-4 0-0 13-4
008 Wilmington OAC 0.643 0.560 0.580 59 0.400 0.542 0.507 198 C 9-5 0-0 10-5
009 Penn State-B AMCC 0.867 0.481 0.577 63 0.857 0.475 0.571 78 A 13-2 0-0 13-2
010 Mount Union OAC 0.813 0.495 0.574 67 0.714 0.478 0.537 139 A 13-3 0-0 13-3
011 Wittenberg NCAC 0.813 0.495 0.574 69 0.857 0.478 0.573 76 C 13-3 0-0 13-3
012 Bald Wallace OAC 0.563 0.576 0.573 71 0.571 0.619 0.607 42 C 9-7 0-0 9-7
013 Car Mellon UAA 0.615 0.539 0.558 93 0.600 0.465 0.499 217 C 8-5 0-0 9-5
014 John Carroll OAC 0.688 0.509 0.553 101 0.857 0.468 0.565 88 C 11-5 0-0 11-5
015 Grove City PrAC 0.545 0.549 0.548 107 0.500 0.530 0.523 167 C 6-5 0-0 7-8
016 Case Western UAA 0.643 0.510 0.543 117 0.727 0.471 0.535 144 C 9-5 0-0 9-5
017 Calvin MIAA 0.750 0.455 0.529 147 0.714 0.488 0.545 123 C 9-3 0-0 12-4
018 Ohio NorthernOAC 0.500 0.538 0.529 149 0.571 0.581 0.578 69 C 8-8 0-0 8-8
019 Capital OAC 0.438 0.558 0.528 152 0.429 0.600 0.557 98 C 7-9 0-0 7-9
020 Denison NCAC 0.500 0.525 0.519 164 0.571 0.525 0.537 140 C 8-8 0-0 8-8
Sorted by RPI. Home/Away multiplier included. 'NC' is non-conference.
St. Vincent won
Not every score in the D3 world has been reported, but this should be reasonable accurate for GL teams through Wednesday.
GL WP wSOS wRPI NAT CONF TEAM
01 1.000 0.538 0.654 005 NCAC Wooster
02 0.813 0.542 0.610 024 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
03 0.643 0.597 0.608 027 MIAA Hope
04 0.733 0.560 0.603 030 NCAC DePauw
05 0.733 0.555 0.600 032 OAC Marietta
06 0.923 0.481 0.591 041 PrAC St. Vincent
07 0.750 0.538 0.591 044 PrAC Bethany
08 0.643 0.559 0.580 059 OAC Wilmington
09 0.867 0.479 0.576 064 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
10 0.813 0.495 0.574 067 NCAC Wittenberg
11 0.813 0.493 0.573 069 OAC Mount Union
12 0.563 0.574 0.571 073 OAC Baldwin Wallace
13 0.615 0.547 0.564 080 UAA Carnegie Mellon
14 0.688 0.511 0.555 100 OAC John Carroll
15 0.643 0.509 0.543 117 UAA Case Western Reserve
16 0.583 0.523 0.538 123 PrAC Grove City
17 0.750 0.454 0.528 150 MIAA Calvin
18 0.500 0.537 0.528 151 OAC Ohio Northern
19 0.438 0.557 0.527 153 OAC Capital
20 0.500 0.524 0.518 166 NCAC Denison
Thanks KS - really appreciate getting these snapshots of the region!
Thanks KnightSlappy -- these RPI ratings for the Great Lakes are very informative! k+
It is interesting where Wittenberg and Mt. Union fall on his list (behind teams like St. Vincent and Penn St. Behrend) and then you look at their weak strength of schedule and the reason is obvious.
Pitt-Greensburg 65 PSU-Behrend 61
DePauw 78 Wooster 74
Quote from: sac on January 25, 2014, 03:08:24 PM
Pitt-Greensburg 65 PSU-Behrend 61
DePauw 78 Wooster 74
Wooster will hold on to the RPI lead in the GL, but DePauw looks like they might slide into the #2 spot (we'll keep our eye on what happens in Delaware).
Calvin drops to 20th after beating Olivet on the road.
Marietta 78 Wilmington 76
Mostly complete through Saturday. Numbers 2-5 are basically a tie in terms of RPI.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.933 0.559 0.653 005 14-1 0-0 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.750 0.566 0.612 021 12-4 0-0 OAC Marietta
GL 03 0.643 0.601 0.612 022 9-5 0-0 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.750 0.562 0.609 023 12-4 0-0 NCAC DePauw
GL 05 0.824 0.538 0.609 024 14-3 0-0 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 06 0.923 0.475 0.587 049 12-1 0-0 PrAC St. Vincent
GL 07 0.765 0.521 0.582 052 13-4 0-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 08 0.824 0.491 0.574 062 14-3 0-0 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 09 0.813 0.492 0.572 065 13-3 0-0 OAC Mount Union
gl 10 0.824 0.480 0.566 077 14-3 0-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 11 0.600 0.553 0.565 079 9-6 0-0 OAC Wilmington
gl 12 0.529 0.569 0.559 087 9-8 0-0 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 13 0.688 0.512 0.556 092 11-5 0-0 OAC John Carroll
gl 14 0.571 0.529 0.540 120 8-6 0-0 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 15 0.538 0.533 0.534 134 7-6 0-0 PrAC Grove City
gl 16 0.500 0.541 0.531 141 8-8 0-0 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 17 0.471 0.550 0.530 143 8-9 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 18 0.471 0.550 0.530 144 8-9 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.769 0.449 0.529 147 10-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 20 0.600 0.505 0.528 148 9-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2014, 11:45:45 PM
Mostly complete through Saturday. Numbers 2-5 are basically a tie in terms of RPI.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
gl 17 0.471 0.550 0.530 143 8-9 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 18 0.471 0.550 0.530 144 8-9 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.769 0.449 0.529 147 10-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 20 0.600 0.505 0.528 148 9-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
Funny that Calvin would slot behind two teams with losing records. I guess that's what a woeful SOS will do for you. Does this presume that Calvin has the waiver that makes all of their games regional?
Quote from: David Collinge on January 26, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2014, 11:45:45 PM
Mostly complete through Saturday. Numbers 2-5 are basically a tie in terms of RPI.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
gl 17 0.471 0.550 0.530 143 8-9 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 18 0.471 0.550 0.530 144 8-9 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.769 0.449 0.529 147 10-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 20 0.600 0.505 0.528 148 9-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
Funny that Calvin would slot behind two teams with losing records. I guess that's what a woeful SOS will do for you. Does this presume that Calvin has the waiver that makes all of their games regional?
I think the committee would actually slot Calvin ahead of those sub-.500 teams because they probably apply arbitrary rules like that.
The handbook actually doesn't mention the 70% rule or the waiver or anything like that, but yeah, these numbers assume all D3 games count for all teams.
The fact that Calvin's schedule is .680 against regional opponents is about as close as you can get. 17 of their 25 games are in-region. I suspect they got the waiver... but I still have not heard officially if they have or have not.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 26, 2014, 04:55:00 PM
The fact that Calvin's schedule is .680 against regional opponents is about as close as you can get. 17 of their 25 games are in-region. I suspect they got the waiver... but I still have not heard officially if they have or have not.
Back in the fall Coach VandeStreek indicated that the ncaa would allow them to count conference tournament games toward the 70% this year (but not next year).
From what I have been told by the chair of the NCAA committee... the conference tournament games do not count... it is the schedule you present before the season starts, not added games or tournament games. That doesn't mean they won't be granted a waiver for this year... that is different than allowing other games to count that are not actually on their schedule when they are due I believe in September.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2014, 11:48:06 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 26, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2014, 11:45:45 PM
Mostly complete through Saturday. Numbers 2-5 are basically a tie in terms of RPI.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
gl 17 0.471 0.550 0.530 143 8-9 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 18 0.471 0.550 0.530 144 8-9 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.769 0.449 0.529 147 10-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 20 0.600 0.505 0.528 148 9-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
Funny that Calvin would slot behind two teams with losing records. I guess that's what a woeful SOS will do for you. Does this presume that Calvin has the waiver that makes all of their games regional?
I think the committee would actually slot Calvin ahead of those sub-.500 teams because they probably apply arbitrary rules like that.
The handbook actually doesn't mention the 70% rule or the waiver or anything like that, but yeah, these numbers assume all D3 games count for all teams.
The interesting thing for Calvin could be how Carthage, Wheaton, Hope, and Claremont-Mudd-Scripps end up in the rankings. It's not impossible that all four end up ranked (by RPI Claremont-M-S is the only one outside the ranked spots, but they're only a couple spots out and playing well). Calvin
could be 2-3 versus regionally ranked opponents at the time of the first rankings.
A bad SOS might be mitigated somewhat if all of their losses came against ranked teams.
Totally agree with you... the vRRO could really help Calvin - though all of those teams would have to stay in the regional rankings each week to really make a difference.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Not sure which board this was being discussed on most recently but here is the list of basketball waivers for this season:
Calvin College – men's basketball.
North Central College – men's basketball.
Olivet College – men's basketball.
Pacific Lutheran University – women's basketball.
Pine Manor College – women's basketball.
Salem College – women's basketball.
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn) – men's and women's basketball.
Trinity Washington University – women's basketball.
Wesleyan College – women's basketball. (The one in Georgia)
William Peace University – men's basketball.
This was posted by Pat in the Pool C discussion. Good news for Calvin I guess, though their 'numbers' actually get weaker by counting all games I think. At least winning percentage does.
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2014, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Not sure which board this was being discussed on most recently but here is the list of basketball waivers for this season:
Calvin College – men's basketball.
North Central College – men's basketball.
Olivet College – men's basketball.
Pacific Lutheran University – women's basketball.
Pine Manor College – women's basketball.
Salem College – women's basketball.
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn) – men's and women's basketball.
Trinity Washington University – women's basketball.
Wesleyan College – women's basketball. (The one in Georgia)
William Peace University – men's basketball.
This was posted by Pat in the Pool C discussion. Good news for Calvin I guess, though their 'numbers' actually get weaker by counting all games I think. At least winning percentage does.
If Wheaton, Carthage, Claremont-M-S, and Redlands were not counted, Calvin's SOS would fall from .449 to .382. Oof. Their RPI would fall nearly 30 points (.030) even considering the winning percentage increase.
Interesting note about Hope I found out about after posting that. Turns out they don't need a waiver, but that's good, because they weren't going to get one.
Hope College – In-Region Competition Waiver Request. The committee did not
approve a request from Hope College to waive the in-region competition requirement for
the sport of men's basketball for the 2013-14 season. In its discussion, the committee
noted the apparent access to in-region opponents for the institution, as well as the late
submission of the waiver request.
30 miles between Calvin and Hope ::)
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2014, 04:04:27 PM
30 miles between Calvin and Hope ::)
I guess that Hope's late waiver request was carried via turtle for those 30 miles. ::)
34 miles of difference in Calvin-Wheaton and Hope-Wheaton. And as you know, that is enough to rule out much of Chicagoland for Calvin.
I was just glad to see the championships committee stand up for the criteria, considering schools have had years and years to adjust.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: sac on January 28, 2014, 04:04:27 PM
30 miles between Calvin and Hope ::)
I guess that Hope's late waiver request was carried via turtle for those 30 miles. ::)
34 miles of difference in Calvin-Wheaton and Hope-Wheaton. And as you know, that is enough to rule out much of Chicagoland for Calvin.
I was just glad to see the championships committee stand up for the criteria, considering schools have had years and years to adjust.
Well, we know it wasn't video streamed live over the internet.
standing up for garbage, is still standing up for garbage
Wooster 14-1
St. Vincent 13-1
Ohio Wesleyan 14-3
Wittenberg 14-3
PSU-Behrend 13-3
Mt. Union 13-3
Hilbert 13-3
Calvin 10-3**
Bethany 13-4
DePauw 12-4
Marietta 12-4
LaRoche 10-4
-------------------------------- .700
John Carroll 11-6
Wilmington 9-6
Hope 9-5
Albion 8-6
Trine 8-7
Head-to-head games this week. One OWU win over Wooster away from a potential 4-way tie in the NCAC.
Jan 29
Ohio Wesleyan at Wooster
Mt. Union at John Carroll
Here's what I have for the GL as of this morning:
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.875 0.559 0.638 009 14-2 0-0 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.833 0.565 0.632 011 15-3 0-0 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.765 0.563 0.614 019 13-4 0-0 NCAC DePauw
GL 04 0.765 0.545 0.600 026 13-4 0-0 OAC Marietta
GL 05 0.667 0.574 0.597 032 10-5 0-0 MIAA Hope
GL 06 0.929 0.481 0.593 038 13-1 0-0 PrAC St. Vincent
GL 07 0.824 0.505 0.584 048 14-3 0-0 OAC Mount Union
gl 08 0.778 0.504 0.572 063 14-4 0-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 09 0.625 0.551 0.569 067 10-6 0-0 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.833 0.478 0.567 070 15-3 0-0 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 11 0.833 0.466 0.558 084 15-3 0-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 12 0.786 0.467 0.546 106 11-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 13 0.611 0.521 0.544 114 11-7 0-0 OAC John Carroll
gl 14 0.556 0.539 0.543 117 10-8 0-0 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 15 0.500 0.557 0.543 120 9-9 0-0 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 16 0.500 0.547 0.535 132 9-9 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 17 0.538 0.532 0.534 135 7-6 0-0 PrAC Grove City
gl 18 0.533 0.529 0.530 143 8-7 0-0 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 19 0.625 0.493 0.526 150 10-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 20 0.444 0.549 0.523 155 8-10 0-0 NCAC Denison
St. Vincent 13-1
Wooster 14-2
Ohio Wesleyan 15-3
Wittenberg 15-3
PSU-Behrend 15-3
Hilbert 15-3
Mt. Union 14-3
Calvin 10-3**
Bethany 14-4
DePauw 13-4
Marietta 13-4
LaRoche 12-4
-------------------------------- .700
Hope 10-5
Wilmington 10-6
John Carroll 11-7
Trine 9-7
Albion 8-7
A week ago Wooster had a huge cushion I thought, now that's pretty much gone. Its doubtful St. Vincent ends up with more than 2 losses.
No head-to-head games this weekend.
Does anyone know what most consider a safe national ranking (RPI based) heading into Selection Sunday to be considered a solid lock for a pool C bid should one need it?
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 30, 2014, 12:40:49 PM
Does anyone know what most consider a safe national ranking (RPI based) heading into Selection Sunday to be considered a solid lock for a pool C bid should one need it?
The committee doesn't actually use RPI -- and there are other criteria involved -- but I usually think of .600 as a general in/out bubble cutoff.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "safe" Pool C, but maybe an RPI in the .630+ range would be that.
First official ranking is February 12.
The first set of real rankings will use data through next Sunday. Here are the numbers I have through yesterday.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.882 0.541 0.626 011 15-2 0-0 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.842 0.544 0.618 016 16-3 0-0 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.688 0.580 0.607 024 11-5 0-0 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.722 0.559 0.600 029 13-5 0-0 NCAC DePauw
GL 05 0.778 0.536 0.597 032 14-4 0-0 OAC Marietta
GL 06 0.833 0.494 0.579 049 15-3 0-0 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.789 0.508 0.578 050 15-4 0-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 08 0.933 0.460 0.578 051 14-1 0-0 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 09 0.647 0.531 0.560 074 11-6 0-0 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.842 0.457 0.553 090 16-3 0-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 11 0.789 0.470 0.550 095 15-4 0-0 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 12 0.526 0.552 0.545 107 10-9 0-0 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 13 0.474 0.569 0.545 109 9-10 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 14 0.526 0.549 0.543 113 10-9 0-0 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 15 0.800 0.457 0.543 115 12-3 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 16 0.632 0.512 0.542 117 12-7 0-0 OAC John Carroll
gl 17 0.474 0.563 0.541 120 9-10 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 18 0.647 0.487 0.527 145 11-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 19 0.500 0.527 0.521 157 8-8 0-0 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 20 0.467 0.532 0.516 164 7-8 0-0 PrAC Grove City
I still haven't seen anything official that says the entire AMCC is in the Great Lakes Region for this season.
However the AMCC and Heartland are both approved for the Great Lakes Region for the 2014/2015 season. That takes us to 59 schools and we should get 9 ranking slots.
Is there a link the 2014 Tournament manual floating around yet?
Page 24 of the Pre-Championship handbook lists the entire AMCC in the Great Lakes Region as noted it would nearly a year ago: www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2014_Revised_12-5-13_0.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2014_Revised_12-5-13_0.pdf)
That is per what we released nearly a year ago: www.d3sports.com/notables/2013/02/regional-realignment-coming (http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2013/02/regional-realignment-coming)
The tricky thing, especially for these early rankings, is knowing how the RAC treat results versus regionally ranked opponents. If I understand correctly, they sort of do a double-iteration for the final rankings, but do the RAC get any indication of who is ranked in other regions?
I have been meaning to ask that... keep forgetting... but I think initial rankings get down and then a double-iteration is done to fine tune them. OR they do the rankings and the national committee then uses the vRRO to adjust accordingly. I will try and get an answer.
I did Hope's OWP with the home/away modifiers yesterday. The modifiers are just crazy.
Top to bottom most "valuable games"
@ Stevens Point 1.250
@ Calvin 1.071
@ Whitewater 1.053
Centre (N) .917
Carthage (N) .765
@ Trine .750
Wheaton (N) .684
@ Thomas More .662
Illinois Wesleyan .625
Trine .450
Edgewood .397
@ Albion .350
Lake Forest .264
@ Alma .221
Adrian .115
Olivet .114
OWP .606
without modifiers .604
I find it very hard to stomach that playing at 9-6 Trine and 9-8 Thomas More is more valuable to your OWP than playing 15-3 Illinois Wesleyan at home. Playing on the road does not make Thomas More and Trine better than Illinois Wesleyan, nor does playing Illinois Wesleyan at home suddenly make them worse than a 15-3 team.
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
I did Hope's OWP with the home/away modifiers yesterday. The modifiers are just crazy.
Top to bottom most "valuable games"
@ Stevens Point 1.250
@ Calvin 1.071
@ Whitewater 1.053
Centre (N) .917
Carthage (N) .765
@ Trine .750
Wheaton (N) .684
@ Thomas More .662
Illinois Wesleyan .625
Trine .450
Edgewood .397
@ Albion .350
Lake Forest .264
@ Alma .221
Adrian .115
Olivet .114
OWP .606
without modifiers .604
I find it very hard to stomach that playing at 9-6 Trine and 9-8 Thomas More is more valuable to your OWP than playing 15-3 Illinois Wesleyan at home. Playing on the road does not make Thomas More and Trine better than Illinois Wesleyan, nor does playing Illinois Wesleyan at home suddenly make them worse than a 15-3 team.
Looks like maybe you flipped the multiplier on Albion and Olivet. I have Hope's OWP at .618 with the multiplier.
You're right that 25% is still too high. Probably 10% is closer to where it should be.
And thanks for doing this, it helped me identify an error in my calculations that incorrectly adjusted for teams playing opponents multiple times.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2014, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
I did Hope's OWP with the home/away modifiers yesterday. The modifiers are just crazy.
Top to bottom most "valuable games"
@ Stevens Point 1.250
@ Calvin 1.071
@ Whitewater 1.053
Centre (N) .917
Carthage (N) .765
@ Trine .750
Wheaton (N) .684
@ Thomas More .662
Illinois Wesleyan .625
Trine .450
Edgewood .397
@ Albion .350
Lake Forest .264
@ Alma .221
Adrian .115
Olivet .114
OWP .606
without modifiers .604
I find it very hard to stomach that playing at 9-6 Trine and 9-8 Thomas More is more valuable to your OWP than playing 15-3 Illinois Wesleyan at home. Playing on the road does not make Thomas More and Trine better than Illinois Wesleyan, nor does playing Illinois Wesleyan at home suddenly make them worse than a 15-3 team.
Looks like maybe you flipped the multiplier on Albion and Olivet. I have Hope's OWP at .618 with the multiplier.
You're right that 25% is still too high. Probably 10% is closer to where it should be.
And thanks for doing this, it helped me identify an error in my calculations that incorrectly adjusted for teams playing opponents multiple times.
I might even do away with the home game penalty altogether.
It seems like we do a lot of math to arrive at a similar answer, and just present more opportunities to make mistakes. I sort of agree there should be some kind of "bonus" for an away game, but the 1.25 and .75 modifiers seem extreme.
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2014, 03:39:21 PM
I might even do away with the home game penalty altogether.
It seems like we do a lot of math to arrive at a similar answer, and just present more opportunities to make mistakes. I sort of agree there should be some kind of "bonus" for an away game, but the 1.25 and .75 modifiers seem extreme.
This would be the same as removing the "bonus" for playing a neutral site game, cutting the multiplier in half, and shifting the average to something like .600.
I think you would still want the average/median to be .500, so I think you need to do the opposite to the home games as whatever you're doing to the road games.
It makes sense to discount a home game if you're going to "reward" an away game, it just has to be done in a way that makes sense. The multiplier should be such that it accurately represents the difference in playing at home and on the road.
Consider the following win probabilities per Massey:
IWU (75%) at Hope (25%)
IWU (81%) vs (neutral court) Hope (19%)
IWU (88% hosting Hope (12%)
Thomas More (17%) at Hope (83%)
Thomas More (22%) vs (neutral court) Hope (78%)
Thomas More (31%) hosting Hope (70%)
Proves sac's point, which probably everyone would agree with anyway. Any multiplier that makes Thomas More look like a tougher opponent than Illinois Wesleyan is totally out of whack. Hope is a solid favorite over Thomas More regardless of location and a solid underdog to Illinois Wesleyan regardless of location.
It's a limited set of two Hope opponents but we see similar differences in the win probability based on where the game is played. A better real-world set of multipliers looks to be 0.94/1.0/1.06 but a 0.9/1.0/1.1 would probably generally pass the sniff test while allowing for a little more penalty/reward for how a schedule is put together.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2014, 12:11:54 PM
I have been meaning to ask that... keep forgetting... but I think initial rankings get down and then a double-iteration is done to fine tune them. OR they do the rankings and the national committee then uses the vRRO to adjust accordingly. I will try and get an answer.
To follow up... I have been told it looks like the national committee will make the necessary changes. So, the RACs will vote with the information they have in hand (including not having the vRRO the first week) and then the national committee will make adjustments per now having vRRO information.
Quote from: ziggy on February 03, 2014, 04:02:14 PM
It makes sense to discount a home game if you're going to "reward" an away game, it just has to be done in a way that makes sense. The multiplier should be such that it accurately represents the difference in playing at home and on the road.
Consider the following win probabilities per Massey:
IWU (75%) at Hope (25%)
IWU (81%) vs (neutral court) Hope (19%)
IWU (88% hosting Hope (12%)
Thomas More (17%) at Hope (83%)
Thomas More (22%) vs (neutral court) Hope (78%)
Thomas More (31%) hosting Hope (70%)
Proves sac's point, which probably everyone would agree with anyway. Any multiplier that makes Thomas More look like a tougher opponent than Illinois Wesleyan is totally out of whack. Hope is a solid favorite over Thomas More regardless of location and a solid underdog to Illinois Wesleyan regardless of location.
It's a limited set of two Hope opponents but we see similar differences in the win probability based on where the game is played. A better real-world set of multipliers looks to be 0.94/1.0/1.06 but a 0.9/1.0/1.1 would probably generally pass the sniff test while allowing for a little more penalty/reward for how a schedule is put together.
Nice work, but I don't agree with the bolded part, only because they're using W-L record as the sole determining factor of team quality. You're always going to have a team like Wheaton -- good but played a tough schedule -- looking questionable compared to a St. Vincent -- probably good, but playing a very easy schedule. Any system (with or without a multiplier) will have a hard time there.
That's where OOWP would sort of correct it. But I think with the multipliers being so extreme that correction isn't what it should be.
A couple of important games in the region tonight, both with video links
Calvin at Hope 8pm http://new.livestream.com/calvin-college/events/2745282 (http://new.livestream.com/calvin-college/events/2745282)
Wittenberg at Ohio Wesleyan 7:30pm http://stream.owu.edu/ (http://stream.owu.edu/)
also this one.....
Mt. Union at Baldwin Wallace......as of now is the only OAC game that hasn't been postponed to Thursday.
Thiel 124 St. Vincent 121 4 overtimes
That result should have major ranking implications for next week as in St. Vincent shouldn't be in the top half of the GL rankings.
Medaille 70 PSU-Behrend 67
PSUB should also not be anywhere near the top half of the GL rankings.
Wooster 16-2
St. Vincent 14-2
Hilbert 17-3
Mt. Union 16-3
Wittenberg 16-4
Ohio Wesleyan 16-4
Bethany 16-4
PSU-Behrend 16-4
Marietta 15-4
Calvin 12-4
Hope 13-5
DePauw 13-5
-------------------------------- .700
LaRoche 12-6
Wilmington 12-6
John Carroll 14-7
Drop Trine and Albion who have too many losses to be viable Pool C candidates
Head-to-head match-ups this weekend:
none
Here's what I have through Thursday.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.889 0.538 0.626 012 16-2 0-0 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.800 0.548 0.611 019 16-4 0-0 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.722 0.572 0.610 022 13-5 0-0 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.789 0.541 0.603 029 15-4 0-0 OAC Marietta
GL 05 0.722 0.560 0.600 031 13-5 0-0 NCAC DePauw
GL 06 0.842 0.511 0.594 042 16-3 0-0 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.800 0.508 0.581 050 16-4 0-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 08 0.800 0.497 0.572 055 16-4 0-0 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 09 0.667 0.540 0.572 057 12-6 0-0 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.875 0.467 0.569 061 14-2 0-0 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 11 0.800 0.469 0.551 091 16-4 0-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 12 0.500 0.563 0.547 098 10-10 0-0 NCAC Denison
gl 13 0.650 0.512 0.546 100 13-7 0-0 OAC John Carroll
gl 14 0.750 0.476 0.545 103 12-4 0-0 MIAA Calvin
gl 15 0.550 0.541 0.543 107 11-9 0-0 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 16 0.500 0.553 0.540 115 10-10 0-0 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 17 0.450 0.562 0.534 127 9-11 0-0 OAC Capital
gl 18 0.667 0.486 0.531 134 12-6 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 19 0.467 0.539 0.521 160 7-8 0-0 PrAC Grove City
gl 20 0.529 0.517 0.520 164 9-8 0-0 UAA Carnegie Mellon
My guess is that 'results versus regionally ranked opponents' will push Wittenberg ahead of Bethany. The rest of the top seven is plausible.
Where's Hilbert on your chart?
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 11:09:37 AM
Where's Hilbert on your chart?
#24 with the fifth-worst SOS in the country (and more or less tied for third worst). Of course, they wouldn't
actually be that low if the GL ranked that many teams; they'd be ahead of the sub-.500 teams and most of the sub-.600 teams because that's how they do these things (
i.e. rather arbitrarily).
Calculating OOWP for Hope
Hope should consider leaving the MIAA for the CCIW or the NCAA should just use RPI. Great lesson in why its so important your conference plays good teams and does well in out of conference play.
Also maddening that you as a coach have no control over that whatsoever.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 03:06:44 PM
Calculating OOWP for Hope
Hope should consider leaving the MIAA for the CCIW or the NCAA should just use RPI. Great lesson in why its so important your conference plays good teams and does well in out of conference play.
Also maddening that you as a coach have no control over that whatsoever.
Not going to happen in our lifetimes
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 03:06:44 PM
Calculating OOWP for Hope
Hope should consider leaving the MIAA for the CCIW or the NCAA should just use RPI. Great lesson in why its so important your conference plays good teams and does well in out of conference play.
Also maddening that you as a coach have no control over that whatsoever.
To me, the takeaway is that OOWP doesn't matter all that much. Or perhaps not so much that as you want to play "good teams" as you want to play
fair teams with good records.
UW-Stevens Point plays in the WIAC and doesn't typically shy away from tough non-conference games.
OWP: .602, OOWP: .549, SOS: .584
Hope played a tough non-conference schedule but plays in what is a very weak league this year.
OWP: .608, OOWP: .500, SOS: .572
UWSP has one of the best OOWP in the country, and Hope only an average one, but UWSP only comes out .012 ahead in the SOS calc. That's not nothing, but one could overcome that gap (in terms of RPI) with just one extra win in a 27 game schedule.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 11:09:37 AM
Where's Hilbert on your chart?
Also for Hilbert, their wins versus Houghton and Alfred State don't count for primary criteria purposes because they're within their first two years of provisional status.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2014, 03:45:00 PM
OWP: .608, OOWP: .500, SOS: .572
I have .521 for OOWP
My sheet has this, the (HAM) weighted column averages to .500:
OOWP wOOWP Game
0.587 0.734 at UW-Whitewater •
0.614 0.768 at UW-Stevens Point •
0.625 0.625 at Wheaton (Ill.) •
0.605 0.605 at Carthage •
0.518 0.388 vs. Lake Forest •
0.541 0.406 vs. Illinois Wesleyan •
0.523 0.523 vs. Centre •
0.542 0.677 at Thomas More •
0.549 0.411 vs. Edgewood •
0.382 0.286 vs. Trine * •
0.444 0.555 at Calvin * •
0.423 0.529 at Albion * •
0.478 0.359 vs. Olivet * •
0.546 0.682 at Alma * •
0.436 0.327 vs. Adrian * •
0.382 0.477 at Trine * •
0.422 0.316 vs. Kalamazoo * •
0.444 0.333 vs. Calvin * •
What isn't clear to me is if the OOWP is calculated using each opponent's weighted OWP, or raw OWP.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2014, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2014, 03:45:00 PM
OWP: .608, OOWP: .500, SOS: .572
I have .521 for OOWP
My sheet has this, the (HAM) weighted column averages to .500:
OOWP wOOWP Game
0.587 0.734 at UW-Whitewater •
0.614 0.768 at UW-Stevens Point •
0.625 0.625 at Wheaton (Ill.) •
0.605 0.605 at Carthage •
0.518 0.388 vs. Lake Forest •
0.541 0.406 vs. Illinois Wesleyan •
0.523 0.523 vs. Centre •
0.542 0.677 at Thomas More •
0.549 0.411 vs. Edgewood •
0.382 0.286 vs. Trine * •
0.444 0.555 at Calvin * •
0.423 0.529 at Albion * •
0.478 0.359 vs. Olivet * •
0.546 0.682 at Alma * •
0.436 0.327 vs. Adrian * •
0.382 0.477 at Trine * •
0.422 0.316 vs. Kalamazoo * •
0.444 0.333 vs. Calvin * •
What isn't clear to me is if the OOWP is calculated using each opponent's weighted OWP, or raw OWP.
Welp, we pretty much don't match on any. I used the home away multipliers, and removed the result for that team.
For Whitewater, Carroll is 12-7 in-region, adjusted for result and used the away muliplier.
Carroll W 12 6 0.667 1.25 0.833
final total. 12.619 0.601
Now my head hurts....
I'm still can't get the exact numbers you have (do you have UW-Whitewater vs. Augsburg as an away game instead of neutral?), but it looks like you're using home/away weighted OWP as your components for OOWP. I'm not doing it that way, but it's not clear from the handbook which way it is to be done.
It appears as though the multiplier comes after the OWPs and OOWPs have been calculated, but I'm sure the manual isn't that detailed.
Allegheny 69 DePauw 66
Tigers pick up loss number 6
That's going to leave a mark...
Here's what I have through Saturday. Results versus regionally ranked are an estimate based on who's in ranked position by RPI.
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.895 0.546 0.633 008 17-2 3-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.810 0.550 0.615 020 17-4 2-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.737 0.564 0.607 022 14-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.800 0.525 0.594 034 16-4 0-3 OAC Marietta
GL 05 0.850 0.506 0.592 038 17-3 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 06 0.810 0.500 0.578 052 17-4 1-1 PrAC Bethany
GL 07 0.882 0.473 0.575 056 15-2 1-0 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 08 0.810 0.497 0.575 058 17-4 2-2 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 09 0.700 0.523 0.567 065 14-6 1-4 NCAC DePauw
gl 10 0.632 0.531 0.556 084 12-7 0-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 11 0.524 0.564 0.554 089 11-10 0-5 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 12 0.810 0.465 0.551 094 17-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 13 0.571 0.542 0.550 100 12-9 1-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 14 0.667 0.503 0.544 111 14-7 0-4 OAC John Carroll
gl 15 0.765 0.463 0.538 119 13-4 1-4 MIAA Calvin
gl 16 0.476 0.556 0.536 122 10-11 0-5 NCAC Denison
gl 17 0.429 0.568 0.534 127 9-12 1-3 OAC Capital
gl 18 0.632 0.496 0.530 135 12-7 3-2 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 19 0.500 0.534 0.525 144 9-9 1-4 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 20 0.438 0.541 0.515 174 7-9 0-4 PrAC Grove City
Calvin could be a wild card by the end of the month, there's a chance they could be the only team in the region who hasn't lost to a non-regionally ranked team. They'll need to get their WP up to have a shot at the rankings, however.
I think Wittenberg should be ranked, but it's hard to see exactly where they fit in. St. Vincent beat Bethany who beat Mount Union who beat Marietta.
KnightSlappy: Excellent work as usual. :) I find your rankings very informative and helpful! Thanks and k+
Maybe it is just me... but doesn't this pretty well describe the math (granted, we won't know until we see SOS numbers on Wednesday)?
Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP). Take each opponent's regular won-lost percentage a Division III teams (excluding the results against the team in question) and average the percentages.
To calculate: Team A Schedule is as follows:
opponent Record vs. team A Revised Record Revised w-l Percentage
Team B 21-7 0-1 21-6 .7778
Team C 11-15 0-1 11-14 .4400
Team D 7-20 0-1 7-19 .2692
Team E 13-13 0-1 13-12 .5200
Team F 23-6 1-0 22-6 .7858
TOTAL 74-56 (.5692) .5585 (OWP)
Opponents' Opponents' Average winning Percentage (oowP). The strength of each opponent's schedule is measured by computing the opponent's winning percentage for each opponent, and then averaging the percentages. This recognizes the fact that two opponents with similar won-lost records may have played far different schedules (in terms of strength of opponents).
To calculate, take Teams B, C, D, E and F schedules and perform the same calculation as above (OWP). It is important to note that the OOWP will support the OWP (i.e., if Teams A and B have the
same OWP of .5692; Team A has an OOWP of .6125 and Team B has an OOWP of .4567; it would indicate team A has the stronger strength of schedule).
Weighted Scale. Once the Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) and Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) are calculated, they are to be combined on a weighted scale (e.g., 2/3 weight for OWP and 1/3 weight for OOWP) and this combined number becomes the strength of schedule.
Home/Away Multiplier. A multiplier of 1.25 shall be added to the OWP and OOWP for those games played away from home. A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) will be included in the
OWP and OOWP for all neutral games. A multiplier of 0.75 shall be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2014, 01:30:47 PM
Maybe it is just me... but doesn't this pretty well describe the math (granted, we won't know until we see SOS numbers on Wednesday)?
Home/Away Multiplier. A multiplier of 1.25 shall be added to the OWP and OOWP for those games played away from home. A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) will be included in the
OWP and OOWP for all neutral games. A multiplier of 0.75 shall be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games.
The question, at least for me, is when does the HAM get applied to the component OWPs? Is it before the OOWPs are calculated (i.e. do HAM-adjusted OWPs go into the OOWP calculation?) or is the adjusting done after the fact (i.e. are OOWPs calculated using raw OWP numbers?)?
Yeah... I see your point... thought it was in there. I will see if I can find an answer before Wednesday.
Wooster 17-2
St. Vincent 15-2
Hilbert 18-3
Mt. Union 17-3
Wittenberg 17-4
Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
Marietta 16-4
--------------------------------.800
Bethany 17-4
PSU-Behrend 17-4
Calvin 13-4
Hope 14-5
-------------------------------- .700
DePauw 13-6
Drop John Carroll, Wilmington, LaRoche who have too many losses to be viable Pool C candidates
Head-to-head match-ups this week of interest:
Wednesday
DePauw at Wittenberg
Saturday
Wittenberg at Wooster
Bethany at St. Vincent
A very big week for Wittenberg who can solidify their Pool C credentials.
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2014, 07:04:19 PM
too many losses to be viable Pool C candidates.
I'm not sure this is a thing. We've seen teams with eight losses get Pool C bids, and that was even before all games counted. It's all about percentages, not counting totals.
Well... some of those eight-loss teams didn't have all eight losses count in their in-region record, so that isn't exactly a fair comparison. That being said, teams have made it with worse win/loss records than others because their SOS was far superior than the other team's (along with other criteria)... so losses can be a tough gauge to lean on. I have usually said 20-wins is a good barameter if you have a decent SOS... but teams with 18 or 19 wins have also gotten at large bids - and done well in the tournament.
The only one I've dropped that might have the criteria to get in is Wilmington. Unless they beat Mt. Union in two weeks I think they'll have a goose egg for RRO's, but I have to imagine their SOS will be pretty good.
With so many good teams in this region its hard to envision an 8 loss team being in a position for Pool C. There are at least 3 teams that will have really good records but lousy SOS that could potentially block an 8 loss GL team from ever getting discussed.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2014, 11:55:30 PM
Well... some of those eight-loss teams didn't have all eight losses count in their in-region record
But some of them did.
I also think it's silly that there's a winning percentage (above zero) below which teams "can't" be considered for the rankings / Pool C.
Not sure anyone said that... I certainly didn't. But that doesn't mean there isn't a number to us non-committee members you can use as a barometer or guide as to their chances.
Many teams have gotten at-large bids with more than 8-losses thanks to SOS, head-to-head, vRRO, etc.... and teams with just a handful of losses have not made the tournament because of the same information.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2014, 08:18:02 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2014, 11:55:30 PM
Well... some of those eight-loss teams didn't have all eight losses count in their in-region record
But some of them did.
I also think it's silly that there's a winning percentage (above zero) below which teams "can't" be considered for the rankings / Pool C.
I think I was just being realistic about their chances. Technically no one has been eliminated but past selection history says 8 losses in this region is pretty much done. With 7 in-region losses already and still some difficult games remaining I might have been just saving myself a little time by crossing them off the list.
We started using OWP/OOWP in 2008 with a few tweaks here and there. 15-9 Randolph from last year was the first 9 loss team I can remember making the tournament. I can only think off the top of head of Wheaton and IWU making it with 8 losses. IWU might have been in the old QOWI days.
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2014, 05:32:11 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2014, 08:18:02 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2014, 11:55:30 PM
Well... some of those eight-loss teams didn't have all eight losses count in their in-region record
But some of them did.
I also think it's silly that there's a winning percentage (above zero) below which teams "can't" be considered for the rankings / Pool C.
I think I was just being realistic about their chances. Technically no one has been eliminated but past selection history says 8 losses in this region is pretty much done. With 7 in-region losses already and still some difficult games remaining I might have been just saving myself a little time by crossing them off the list.
We started using OWP/OOWP in 2008 with a few tweaks here and there. 15-9 Randolph from last year was the first 9 loss team I can remember making the tournament. I can only think off the top of head of Wheaton and IWU making it with 8 losses. IWU might have been in the old QOWI days.
Actually Randolph was 15-6 last year, they had 9 RRO's, my mistake. IWU and Wheaton both had 7 losses. Bad memory.
The only 8 loss teams that have been selected for Pool C were Brandeis in 2009 and Springfield in 2013.
That's only 2 out of about 100 Pool C selections. Pretty small chances.
I'll take a guess for today:
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.895 0.545 0.633 008 A 17-2 3-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.810 0.550 0.615 019 C 17-4 2-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.760 0.534 0.591 037 A 19-6 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.850 0.504 0.591 039 A 17-3 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 05 0.800 0.525 0.594 032 C 16-4 0-3 OAC Marietta
gl 06 0.810 0.497 0.575 057 C 17-4 2-2 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 07 0.882 0.473 0.575 056 A 15-2 1-0 PrAC St. Vincent
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2014, 08:55:05 AM
I'll take a guess for today:
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.895 0.545 0.633 008 A 17-2 3-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.810 0.550 0.615 019 C 17-4 2-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.760 0.534 0.591 037 A 19-6 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.850 0.504 0.591 039 A 17-3 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 05 0.800 0.525 0.594 032 C 16-4 0-3 OAC Marietta
gl 06 0.810 0.497 0.575 057 C 17-4 2-2 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 07 0.882 0.473 0.575 056 A 15-2 1-0 PrAC St. Vincent
??? Hope is 14-5 vs D3. I suspect you used 19-6 while predicting what Hope's record would be if they win out but lose in the Conf Finals.
Great catch, yes I still had that in the spreadsheet!
RG ## WP wSOS wRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.895 0.545 0.633 008 A 17-2 3-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.810 0.550 0.615 019 C 17-4 2-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.737 0.564 0.607 021 A 14-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 04 0.850 0.504 0.591 039 A 17-3 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 05 0.800 0.525 0.594 033 C 16-4 0-3 OAC Marietta
gl 06 0.810 0.496 0.575 058 C 17-4 2-2 NCAC Wittenberg
GL 07 0.882 0.473 0.575 056 A 15-2 1-0 PrAC St. Vincent
I hope that 0-3 RRO doesn't come back to haunt Marietta at the end of the season. They were right there in all three of those games.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 12, 2014, 12:11:19 PM
I hope that 0-3 RRO doesn't come back to haunt Marietta at the end of the season. They were right there in all three of those games.
My understanding is that RROs can only really be positive in the eyes of the committees. That is, that 0-3 is still better than 0-0 (though 3-0, 2-1 or 1-2 are better than 0-3).
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2014, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 12, 2014, 12:11:19 PM
I hope that 0-3 RRO doesn't come back to haunt Marietta at the end of the season. They were right there in all three of those games.
My understanding is that RROs can only really be positive in the eyes of the committees. That is, that 0-3 is still better than 0-0 (though 3-0, 2-1 or 1-2 are better than 0-3).
Marietta will pick up at least one more RRO when they play Mt. Union next week, could get another in the OAC tournament.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/division-iii-regional-rankings
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 17-2 18-3
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-4
3 Mount Union 17-3 17-3
4 Marietta 16-4 17-4
5 Wittenberg 17-4 17-4
6 Hope 14-5 15-6
7 Bethany (W.Va.) 17-4 18-4
Or you can go to this link... which includes the SOS data links: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/12/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/12/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/)
WOW, Hope has a 0.078 advantage over Wittenberg in SOS, but that didn't make up for their 0.073 disadvantage is SOS (plus having two more results versus RRO)?
This is the opposite of how teams were ranked last year.
St. Vincent 15-2 .882/.460
Bethany 17-4 .810/.489
I Really don't see the rational thinking behind Bethany being ahead of St. Vincent. So +.029 SOS is enough to make up for 2 more losses and a head-to-head loss to St. Vincent?
so .029 SOS is enough to lift Bethany over St. Vincent, but +.078 SOS is not enough to lift Hope over Wittenberg?
Hope 14-5 .737/.588
Wittenberg 17-4 .810/.510
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2014, 04:19:16 PM
St. Vincent 15-2 .882/.460
Bethany 17-4 .810/.489
I Really don't see the rational thinking behind Bethany being ahead of St. Vincent. So +.029 SOS is enough to make up for 2 more losses and a head-to-head loss to St. Vincent?
so .029 SOS is enough to lift Bethany over St. Vincent, but +.078 SOS is not enough to lift Hope over Wittenberg?
Hope 14-5 .737/.588
Wittenberg 17-4 .810/.510
Yeah, I was just about to point out Bethany too. Don't get it.
Also, the NCAA is doing the SOS calc the wrong way still, that much is clear form the numbers.
Well... according to the championships committee (overall one, not sport specific), they are doing it the right way. I know you know what I am talking about. Agreed the math is fuzzy and nearly a washout, but the NCAA thinks they are right until they are proven otherwise ;).
The Midwest Region has 13-7 Carthage number 6 in their Region. They simply 'get it'.
Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.
Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.
And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:31:14 PM
Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.
Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.
And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.
Hope's is .588
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2014, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:31:14 PM
Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.
Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.
And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.
Hope's is .588
and they beat Carthage, by 18
And both teams are ranked 6th this week.
And the head-to-head across regions doesn't mean much when comparing teams in different regions. That will only matter with at-large and/or hosting chances.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
And both teams are ranked 6th this week.
And the head-to-head across regions doesn't mean much when comparing teams in different regions. That will only matter with at-large and/or hosting chances.
Please stop justifying this ridiculous system
Carthage is ranked ahead of Rose-Hulman, same record as Wittenberg, same SOS
6. Carthage 13-7 .650/.590
7. Rose-Hulman 17-4 .810/.511
5. Wittenberg 17-4 .810/.510
6. Hope 14-5 .737/.588
This is the kind of inconsistency that drives people like me who love this division and its tournament crazy.
You are using two points of the criteria... use the rest of the criteria:
- Carthage defeated Wash U (by 2), Rose-Hulman lost to Wash U (by 20).
- Wittenberg lost to Wheaton (by 9), Hope lost to Wheaton (by 19).
That data is important.
And I am not justifying it as much as I understand decisions made when I see it on paper. This is the system... it is far better than in the past... and it is always being improved upon. But in those two examples you give me...
Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.
MOV is not a part of the criteria.
Actually, the criteria reads "results" which doesn't mean it can't take into account the margin of the victory. If you are comparing just one team's results... it could play a factor. I have never been told the margin of victory was not considered and it was just a win/loss scenario.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:52:07 PM
Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.
This is the thing though. I get called crazypants every year for suggestion a mathematical system, and everyone tells me that the committee is necessary to understand the 'finer points'. Yet it's clear that the RACs rank teams differently across the country and that rankings aren't consistent from week-to-week or year-to-year.
I mean differences in where teams are slotted next week... not differences in opinion. The national committee is stressing that everyone consider the data evenly and take each comparison individually... that one solution does not fit all.
A mathematical solution will not make it better. The committees are allowed to consider what they know in their regions... the home/away factor... the understanding of injuries and such. A math problem will never give us that understanding or reasoning.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 05:08:10 PM
Actually, the criteria reads "results" which doesn't mean it can't take into account the margin of the victory.
Exactly. Kind of an eye-opening thought four or five years ago when someone first said that to us but now it's a little more natural to remember it this way.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2014, 05:08:29 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:52:07 PM
Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.
This is the thing though. I get called crazypants every year for suggestion a mathematical system, and everyone tells me that the committee is necessary to understand the 'finer points'. Yet it's clear that the RACs rank teams differently across the country and that rankings aren't consistent from week-to-week or year-to-year.
I would take straight RPI over this every day of the week.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 05:10:42 PM
I mean differences in where teams are slotted next week... not differences in opinion. The national committee is stressing that everyone consider the data evenly and take each comparison individually... that one solution does not fit all.
A mathematical solution will not make it better. The committees are allowed to consider what they know in their regions... the home/away factor... the understanding of injuries and such. A math problem will never give us that understanding or reasoning.
RIGHT THERE! The luddite bias against metrics rears its head.
It's not a MATH PROBLEM. It's a system where analytics and metrics could make the process and system more transparent, more egalitarian, more open and not subject to smoke-filled rooms, mirrors, speculation, haphazard ratings, good ol' boy cronyism and reliance on reputation and not results. Without a rigorous analytical approach that the regional committees can apply consistently you'll get regions that try to game everything and regions that will try to keep the chosen few up on top - or at least that's what people will think.
Ranked GL teams went 3-3-1 tonight, as #2 OWU, #4 Marietta, and #5 Wittenberg lost by 11, 20, and 22, respectively.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 12, 2014, 10:11:06 PM
Ranked GL teams went 3-3-1 tonight, as #2 OWU, #4 Marietta, and #5 Wittenberg lost by 11, 20, and 22, respectively.
Well there ya go! And #6 won by 51! 8-) (And Olivet only lost to #3 Mt. union by 7)
Updated these with last nights results. I'd like to believe this would look quite a bit different this morning with OWU, Marietta and Witt all losing. The SOS numbers wouldn't have changed all that much. In true NCAA fashion the data sheets from yesterday are gone.
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 18-2 19-3
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-5 17-5
3 Mount Union 18-3 18-3
4 Marietta 16-5 17-5
5 Wittenberg 17-5 17-5
6 Hope 15-5 16-6
7 Bethany (W.Va.) 17-4 18-4
Mount Union probably #2 now, maybe Hope moves ahead of Witt but that would be a compete guess really.
Six losses is a bit more sketchy to get a Pool C than five.
Between Wooster/Wittenberg/ these two will accumulate a minimum of two losses with a head-to-head game this weekend and another loss in the NCAC Tournament. Ohio Wesleyan would also accumulate another loss in the NCAC Tournament to be a Pool C candidate.
Between Mt. Union/Marietta these two will accumulate a minimum of two losses with a head-to-head game next week and another loss in the NCAC Tournament.
Marietta, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan have almost put themselves in must win situations now.
Updated RPI numbers through Wednesday, now using the NCAA's incorrect SOS calculation method.
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.900 0.550 0.638 006 A 18-2 4-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.750 0.577 0.620 015 A 15-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.773 0.541 0.599 031 C 17-5 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 04 0.864 0.496 0.588 046 A 19-3 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 05 0.762 0.525 0.584 049 C 16-5 0-3 OAC Marietta
GL 06 0.714 0.535 0.580 056 C 15-6 3-4 NCAC DePauw
GL 07 0.773 0.513 0.578 058 C 17-5 2-2 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 08 0.810 0.491 0.570 068 C 17-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 09 0.889 0.454 0.563 077 A 16-2 1-0 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 10 0.650 0.521 0.554 091 C 13-7 0-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 11 0.545 0.555 0.553 094 C 12-10 0-5 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 12 0.600 0.530 0.548 105 C 12-8 2-3 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 13 0.818 0.451 0.543 112 C 18-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 14 0.591 0.522 0.539 119 C 13-9 1-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 15 0.778 0.459 0.539 120 C 14-4 1-4 MIAA Calvin
gl 16 0.636 0.505 0.538 123 C 14-8 0-4 OAC John Carroll
gl 17 0.455 0.565 0.537 124 C 10-12 2-4 OAC Capital
gl 18 0.850 0.430 0.535 127 A 17-3 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
gl 19 0.571 0.516 0.530 140 C 12-9 1-3 PrAC Thomas More
gl 20 0.474 0.547 0.529 147 C 9-10 1-3 UAA Carnegie Mellon
DePauw is now 2-0 vs. Wittenberg. That's going to make things tough for the wTigers in the rankings.
By RPI, OWU still looks like they might be OK for a Pool C (though definitely bubble). Marietta/DePauw/Witt/Bethany look on the wrong side of the bubble.
RRO's kill me
Out of conference RRO's
Hope - 6
Calvin -3
Wooster - 2
DePauw - 2
OWU - 1
Marietta - 1
Wittenbeg -1
Wilmington -1
Mt. Union - 0
Last year's NCAA Tournament had little auto-bid carnage so the Pool C field probably went deeper into the records than any previous year.
2013 Pool C qualifiers, losses
3 (1)
4 (4)
5 (6)
6 (5)
7 (2)
8 (1)
In 2012, four 6 loss teams made the field as Pool C's.
The seven and eight loss teams (Plattsburgh St., Rutgers-Newark, Springfield) were the only 7/8 loss teams to make the field the last two years. Springfield was one of only two eight loss teams to make the Pool C field since 2008 when we went to OWP/OOWP/SOS calculations.
Last night's carnage in the Great Lakes Region really put some teams in peril of missing out on the tournament. I'm with KS I think Wittenberg's in real danger, assuming they accumulate just another loss in the NCAC tournament, unless their SOS gets a big boost in the coming weeks, which it might, I'm not sure they'll have the criteria for selection. An SOS of .520 was the lowest of the 6/7/8 loss teams from last year and that 6 loss team had 9 RRO's
How much on or off the bubble a team is really depends on results in the conference tournaments two weeks from now.
I think this year has one factor we haven't seen in a very long time... a very deep number of teams that have good NCAA resumes. Even if there are not a lot of upsets in conference tournament play, we will still have a lot of teams that have legitimate arguments to be in the tournament. My source also pointed out they are expecting this year to be a very difficult year when determining at-large teams.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 04:38:03 PM
I think this year has one factor we haven't seen in a very long time... a very deep number of teams that have good NCAA resumes. Even if there are not a lot of upsets in conference tournament play, we will still have a lot of teams that have legitimate arguments to be in the tournament. My source also pointed out they are expecting this year to be a very difficult year when determining at-large teams.
I'm not so sure I see that as any different than the last couple years. There are already a number of 5/6 loss teams in the regional rankings. I count 23 already, that's 1/3 of the 64 regionally ranked teams. By definition of being a Pool C candidate every one looses at least one more. Its really going to depend on who the AQ qualifiers are as always.
After Randolph's SOS of .520 with 9 RRO's, the next lowest of the 5/6/7/8 loss teams to make it last year was probably Rutgers-Newark at 19-7 .548 SOS, 7 RRO's
Kenyon 75 DePauw 67
There might have been a small window for DePauw to be ranked had they won and Witt lost tonight. This game impacts the NCAC tournament seedings much more.
Pitt-Greensburg 67 Hilbert 62
The previous ranking suggested Hilbert didn't have much of a chance to crack into the rankings. I would say this loss assures they won't be ranked as they drop to 17-4.
Bethany 85 St. Vincent 65
Creates a tie atop the PAC with St. Vincent. I believe Bethany holds the tie-breaker for Number 1 seed in the tournament. Unlikely Bethany would be a presentable Pool C team(low SOS), but they have a chance to move up in the GL rankings with this win and all the other losses.
Thomas More lost today as well. Could have been 1 game back with both Bethany and St. Vincent on the schedule next week.
Ohio Northern 90, Mount Union 85
Wooster 60, Wittenberg 55
Just a quick check over my sheet right now, and Calvin, St. Vincent, and DePauw might be battling for the top spot among teams that won't be ranked this week.
According to my numbers, if the NCAA calculated SOS the way it should be done, Mount Union's SOS advantage over Calvin would be .010. They way they're calculating it, the SOS difference comes out to .033.
(Mostly) thru Saturday. Now using the NCAA's wrong SOS method.
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.905 0.555 0.642 005 A 19-2 5-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.762 0.561 0.611 019 A 16-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.783 0.533 0.596 032 C 18-5 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 04 0.773 0.530 0.591 039 C 17-5 0-3 OAC Marietta
GL 05 0.818 0.505 0.583 049 A 18-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
GL 06 0.826 0.498 0.580 050 A 19-4 1-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.739 0.523 0.577 056 C 17-6 2-3 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 08 0.682 0.534 0.571 066 C 15-7 3-4 NCAC DePauw
gl 09 0.842 0.462 0.557 085 C 16-3 1-1 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 10 0.650 0.521 0.553 092 C 13-7 0-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 11 0.609 0.532 0.551 098 C 14-9 2-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 12 0.522 0.560 0.550 099 C 12-11 0-6 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 13 0.826 0.455 0.548 103 A 19-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 14 0.619 0.524 0.548 104 C 13-8 2-3 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 15 0.789 0.465 0.546 109 C 15-4 1-4 MIAA Calvin
gl 16 0.636 0.503 0.537 124 C 14-8 0-4 OAC John Carroll
gl 17 0.478 0.555 0.536 128 C 11-12 2-4 OAC Capital
gl 18 0.522 0.532 0.530 146 C 12-11 1-6 NCAC Denison
gl 19 0.810 0.433 0.527 150 C 17-4 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
gl 20 0.450 0.546 0.522 160 C 9-11 1-4 UAA Carnegie Mellon
Updated with todays results
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 19-2 20-3
2 Ohio Wesleyan 18-5 18-5
3 Mount Union 18-4 18-4
4 Marietta 17-5 18-5
5 Wittenberg 17-6 17-6
6 Hope 16-5 17-6
7 Bethany (W.Va.) 18-4 19-4
Wooster would probably still be an 'automatic C' if they lost in the NCAC tournament, not sure about Mt. Union now.
A little historical reference. Since we went to OWP/OOWP SOS calculations in 2008 and subsequent 'tweeks' that followed. Pool C's have been relatively scarce for this region with just 10 total selections and I think 4 or 5 of those went to teams that had won their regular season championship only to lose in their respective tournaments. We've received 9% of the 108 Pool C's handed out, the Great Lakes is roughly 9.9% of D3.
The MIAA and PAC have yet to receive a Pool C bid.
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--PSU-Behrend, Wittenberg
2012--Ohio Wesleyan, Wittenberg
2013--Wooster
QuoteGL 05 0.818 0.505 0.583 049 A 18-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
I watched quite a bit of their game with St. Vincent. Should they find their way into the tournament they could give someone a tougher game than they want in the first round. Good defensive team.
I have Ohio Wesleyan still as 'bubble-in'.
OAC loser looks very bubble, maybe leaning bubble-out.
Wittenberg certainly looks bubble-out for now.
Wooster is heading for a lock. Hope looks in good shape for a C.
Bethany looks bubble-out.
I'm not seeing it for anyone else.
FYI regarding the PAC tie-breaker (from a source): Saint Vincent holds the tiebreaker over Bethany at this moment for the top seed in the conference tournament and controls its own fate.
"Tiebreaking criteria is as follows: 1) head to head; 2) Matching wins vs. higher seeds; 3) Record vs. common opponents; 4) In-Region Strength of Schedule; 5) Out of Region Strength of Schedule 6) Coin toss."
SVC and Bethany split. Bethany lost at Thomas More on Jan. 22, 82-74 (OT) and Saint Vincent defeated TMC 75-61 on Jan. 18...Thomas More is nearly locked into the third seed in the PAC (can finish with no more than 5 losses, next lowest is 7). Thus if Saint Vincent and Bethany win out (Thomas More losing out), Saint Vincent would hold the tiebreaker on matching wins vs higher seeds, 2-0 vs #3 TMC as opposed to Bethany's 1-1.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2014, 12:02:46 AM
FYI regarding the PAC tie-breaker (from a source): Saint Vincent holds the tiebreaker over Bethany at this moment for the top seed in the conference tournament and controls its own fate.
"Tiebreaking criteria is as follows: 1) head to head; 2) Matching wins vs. higher seeds; 3) Record vs. common opponents; 4) In-Region Strength of Schedule; 5) Out of Region Strength of Schedule 6) Coin toss."
SVC and Bethany split. Bethany lost at Thomas More on Jan. 22, 82-74 (OT) and Saint Vincent defeated TMC 75-61 on Jan. 18...Thomas More is nearly locked into the third seed in the PAC (can finish with no more than 5 losses, next lowest is 7). Thus if Saint Vincent and Bethany win out (Thomas More losing out), Saint Vincent would hold the tiebreaker on matching wins vs higher seeds, 2-0 vs #3 TMC as opposed to Bethany's 1-1.
Thomas More plays both St. Vincent and Bethany this week. If Thomas More wins both they would at minimum tie for the conference championship and would hold a better overall head-to-head record between St. Vincent, Thomas More and Bethany at 3-1.
I would think Thomas More would get the 1 seed in that scenario.
Thomas More would also get the 2 seed if they finish in a tie with Bethany and beat them a second time.
If they beat St. Vincent and end up tied with with St. Vincent I think they would have to go to tie-breaker #3 to settle that, would depend on Thomas More's second result vs Bethany.
Thomas More controls a lot of its own destiny here.
my guess for tomorrow (RRO based on last week's ranks):
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
-- 01 0.905 0.555 0.642 005 A 19-2 5-1 NCAC Wooster
+4 02 0.762 0.563 0.612 018 A 16-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
-1 03 0.783 0.533 0.596 033 C 18-5 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
+3 04 0.818 0.503 0.582 048 A 18-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
-2 05 0.826 0.496 0.579 053 A 19-4 1-1 OAC Mount Union
-2 06 0.773 0.530 0.591 038 C 17-5 0-3 OAC Marietta
-2 07 0.739 0.524 0.577 058 C 17-6 2-3 NCAC Wittenberg
on the outside, could be ranked in the future:
-- -- 0.682 0.535 0.572 067 C 15-7 3-4 NCAC DePauw
-- -- 0.842 0.462 0.557 087 C 16-3 1-1 PrAC St. Vincent
-- -- 0.789 0.465 0.546 104 C 15-4 1-4 MIAA Calvin
-- -- 0.826 0.456 0.549 100 A 19-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
-- -- 0.810 0.433 0.527 150 C 17-4 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
Rankings are up:
1. Wooster -- .905/.556
2. Hope -- .762/.565
3. Ohio Wesleyan -- .783/.534
4. Bethany -- .818/.503
5. Mount Union -- .826/.496
6. Marietta -- .773/.531
7. Wittenberg -- .739/.524
And the link, with the rest of them:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/19/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-2/
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Rankings are up:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Bethany
5. Mount Union
6. Marietta
7. Wittenberg
Are they using Knightslappy's table?
"Ranked" games tonight
Wooster at Allegheny
Hope at Kalamazoo
Ohio Wesleyan at Oberlin
Thomas More at Bethany
Mt. Union at Marietta
Kenyon at Wittenberg
Obviously the Mt. Union/Marietta game has the biggest impact on both the OAC title race and regional rankings. MtU wins the OAC if they win tonight.
Halftime
Marietta 43
Mount Union 40
Final from Marietta
Mount Union 81
Marietta 77
NCAC is going according to Hoyle tonight. Wooster, Wittenberg, and DePauw have already won, and OWU is miles ahead in their game.
Bethany 80 Thomas More 77
Waynesburg 68 St. Vincent 62
Shocker! With that loss Bethany is now in first place in the PAC. Still need to win Saturday to grab the #1 seed.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2014, 10:04:08 PM
Waynesburg 68 St. Vincent 62
Shocker! With that loss Bethany is now in first place in the PAC. Still need to win Saturday to grab the #1 seed.
One just have to love those Calvin players that go on to coach at the college level. :) :)
Quite a day in the GL Region
Wilmington beat Mount Union 84-77
DePauw beat Ohio Wesleyan 64-63
Thomas More beat St. Vincent 90-80
I'm thinking the rankings next week will be:
1. Wooster
2. Hope
3. Bethany
4a. Ohio Wesleyan
4b. Mount Union
6. Marietta
7. DePauw
3-7 look to be stacked up pretty tight.
I wonder if these losses give Hope a little cushion where a loss next week at worst drops them behind Bethany making them basically the first Great Lakes team at the Pool C table.
GLR RPI numbers through the weekend.
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.913 0.534 0.629 007 A 21-2 5-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.783 0.544 0.604 026 A 18-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.750 0.534 0.588 041 C 18-6 0-4 OAC Marietta
GL 04 0.833 0.504 0.587 043 A 20-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
GL 05 0.760 0.528 0.586 044 C 19-6 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 06 0.800 0.510 0.583 050 A 20-5 2-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.708 0.539 0.581 052 C 17-7 4-4 NCAC DePauw
gl 08 0.760 0.511 0.574 062 C 19-6 2-3 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 09 0.652 0.533 0.563 075 C 15-8 1-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.640 0.533 0.560 079 C 16-9 2-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 11 0.840 0.456 0.552 086 A 21-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 12 0.810 0.464 0.550 094 C 17-4 1-3 MIAA Calvin
gl 13 0.762 0.473 0.545 108 C 16-5 1-1 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 14 0.542 0.543 0.543 112 C 13-11 2-5 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 15 0.542 0.534 0.536 131 C 13-11 1-4 PrAC Thomas More
gl 16 0.520 0.540 0.535 135 C 13-12 0-6 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 17 0.600 0.507 0.530 150 C 15-10 0-5 OAC John Carroll
gl 18 0.480 0.545 0.529 152 C 12-13 2-4 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.739 0.455 0.526 156 C 17-6 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
gl 20 0.435 0.556 0.526 158 C 10-13 1-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
I think Hope and Wooster are sitting well for Pool C. Everyone else is going to want to win their tournament.
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Thomas More 70 Grove City 68
DeCarlo Hayes layup at the buzzer send the Saints to the semi's. I believe the PAC reseeds so they'll play Geneva.
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Wouldn't they rather Bethany had marched to the PAC championship? Now Bethany could possibly block them on the board and/or take up a Pool C bid.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2014, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Wouldn't they rather Bethany had marched to the PAC championship? Now Bethany could possibly block them on the board and/or take up a Pool C bid.
True. Witt, Woo and OWU will all pick up RRO's though. In the past teams that lost in the semi-finals aren't usually in very good Pool C shape, this was a quarterfinal loss to a 5-20 team at home.
Obviously there is a danger now of Bethany remaining to high in the final poll and blocking someone from making the table. I don't think Bethany's 'numbers' are all that great though.
The numbers are still updating, but Bethany looks out. SOS just below .500 and only 1-0 vRRO. That's a tough resume to overcome. As of right now their RPI has fallen out of the Top 7 in the GL (and #34 among Pool C candidates).
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2014, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Wouldn't they rather Bethany had marched to the PAC championship? Now Bethany could possibly block them on the board and/or take up a Pool C bid.
I wondered at this statement as well. I don't see how it helps the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates. Another loss for Bethany in the conference tournament I felt would have sent them down the board and below Marietta/Mount/Ohio Wesleyan anyways. As far as blocking the board or stealing a Pool C bid, losing to Geneva has all but finished Bethany's chances at a Pool C. That's a BAD loss at the wrong time if I've ever saw one. Geneva had 5 wins this year (now 6). I see no gain or loss for the NCAC/OAC crew by this.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 25, 2014, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2014, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Wouldn't they rather Bethany had marched to the PAC championship? Now Bethany could possibly block them on the board and/or take up a Pool C bid.
I wondered at this statement as well. I don't see how it helps the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates. Another loss for Bethany in the conference tournament I felt would have sent them down the board and below Marietta/Mount/Ohio Wesleyan anyways. As far as blocking the board or stealing a Pool C bid, losing to Geneva has all but finished Bethany's chances at a Pool C. That's a BAD loss at the wrong time if I've ever saw one. Geneva had 5 wins this year (now 6). I see no gain or loss for the NCAC/OAC crew by this.
I just think, as a rule, teams on the bubble want the "Pool A" teams above them to win in order not to risk them sticking right in front of them.
Bethany beat Mount Union head-to-head, a fact that could play into the rankings should they fail to win the OAC.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 25, 2014, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2014, 09:12:55 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM
Geneva 61 Bethany 59
Stunning loss for the Bison to the #9 seed in PAC. This is the kind of loss that keeps you home. Big winners here are the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates.
Wouldn't they rather Bethany had marched to the PAC championship? Now Bethany could possibly block them on the board and/or take up a Pool C bid.
I wondered at this statement as well. I don't see how it helps the NCAC/OAC Pool C candidates. Another loss for Bethany in the conference tournament I felt would have sent them down the board and below Marietta/Mount/Ohio Wesleyan anyways. As far as blocking the board or stealing a Pool C bid, losing to Geneva has all but finished Bethany's chances at a Pool C. That's a BAD loss at the wrong time if I've ever saw one. Geneva had 5 wins this year (now 6). I see no gain or loss for the NCAC/OAC crew by this.
Losing tonight was more key to my statement that it helps the NCAC/OAC pool c's. If Bethany had made it to the PrAC final and loses that might have been enough to keep them ahead of some schools. This won't
PrAC Tournament Semi's on Thursday
Geneva at Thomas More
Waynesburg at St. Vincent
Waynesburg just beat St. V last week. St. V was missing a couple starters, not sure if they're back or not.
Through Sunday:
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.913 0.534 0.629 007 A 21-2 5-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.783 0.544 0.604 026 A 18-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.750 0.534 0.588 041 C 18-6 0-4 OAC Marietta
GL 04 0.833 0.504 0.587 043 A 20-4 1-0 PrAC Bethany
GL 05 0.760 0.528 0.586 044 C 19-6 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 06 0.800 0.510 0.583 050 A 20-5 2-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.708 0.539 0.581 052 C 17-7 4-4 NCAC DePauw
gl 08 0.760 0.511 0.574 062 C 19-6 2-3 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 09 0.652 0.533 0.563 075 C 15-8 1-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.640 0.533 0.560 079 C 16-9 2-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 11 0.840 0.456 0.552 086 A 21-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 12 0.810 0.464 0.550 094 C 17-4 1-3 MIAA Calvin
gl 13 0.762 0.473 0.545 108 C 16-5 1-1 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 14 0.542 0.543 0.543 112 C 13-11 2-5 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 15 0.542 0.534 0.536 131 C 13-11 1-4 PrAC Thomas More
gl 16 0.520 0.540 0.535 135 C 13-12 0-6 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 17 0.600 0.507 0.530 151 C 15-10 0-5 OAC John Carroll
gl 18 0.480 0.545 0.529 152 C 12-13 2-4 OAC Capital
gl 19 0.739 0.455 0.526 155 C 17-6 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
gl 20 0.435 0.556 0.526 157 C 10-13 1-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
Through Tuesday:
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.917 0.529 0.626 008 A 22-2 5-1 NCAC Wooster
GL 02 0.783 0.545 0.604 025 A 18-5 2-4 MIAA Hope
GL 03 0.769 0.528 0.588 041 C 20-6 2-3 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 04 0.750 0.534 0.588 042 C 18-6 0-4 OAC Marietta
GL 05 0.720 0.537 0.582 049 C 18-7 4-4 NCAC DePauw
GL 06 0.800 0.508 0.581 051 A 20-5 2-1 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.769 0.511 0.575 059 C 20-6 2-3 NCAC Wittenberg
gl 08 0.800 0.498 0.573 064 C 20-5 1-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 09 0.667 0.533 0.566 073 C 16-8 1-4 OAC Wilmington
gl 10 0.615 0.533 0.554 086 C 16-10 2-3 OAC Ohio Northern
gl 11 0.840 0.456 0.552 090 A 21-4 1-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 12 0.810 0.465 0.551 093 C 17-4 1-3 MIAA Calvin
gl 13 0.773 0.473 0.548 103 A 17-5 1-1 PrAC St. Vincent
gl 14 0.542 0.541 0.541 119 C 13-11 2-5 UAA Case Western Reserve
gl 15 0.560 0.532 0.539 128 C 14-11 1-4 PrAC Thomas More
gl 16 0.630 0.507 0.538 132 C 17-10 0-5 OAC John Carroll
gl 17 0.519 0.541 0.535 137 C 14-13 0-6 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 18 0.750 0.458 0.531 148 C 18-6 0-0 AMCC Hilbert
gl 19 0.435 0.555 0.525 157 C 10-13 1-5 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 20 0.462 0.544 0.524 159 C 12-14 2-4 OAC Capital
The biggest problem with Bethany is they didn't pick up a couple of more games/wins to bolster their resume. Sure, it is only against conference teams, but every game would have helped their Pool C chances. I think the same as others... they may be out of the NCAA tournament after not getting past the quarterfinals.
Have to feel for Bethany, they really did everything right when it comes to scheduling.
Went out and played Ohio Northern, Baldwin Wallace, Mt. Union, St. Lawrence, PSU-Behrend all games that would help their SOS. Being in the PrAC killed their SOS.
But you can't lose to the 9th seed on your own floor. :-[
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2014, 11:51:51 AM
But you can't lose to the 9th seed on your own floor. :-[
Yeah, exactly. I agree that Bethany did some good things in the non-conference, unlike St. Vincent.
Ironically, Bethany's postgame story talks solely about waiting for an ECAC bid. Losing in the quarterfinals isn't the automatic death knell it would have been pre-pools, though.
Why does the ECAC still exist and why isn't there a Midwest version?
Is Wooster pretty much a lock for the top ranking in the final GL Region poll even if they happen to lose on Friday and Hope were to go on to win the MIAA Conference Tournament?
It sure looks like they have a pretty commanding lead on Hope and even with a loss to OWU, it seems like their lead is big enough to maintain their top ranking...
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 26, 2014, 02:32:20 PM
Is Wooster pretty much a lock for the top ranking in the final GL Region poll even if they happen to lose on Friday and Hope were to go on to win the MIAA Conference Tournament?
It sure looks like they have a pretty commanding lead on Hope and even with a loss to OWU, it seems like their lead is big enough to maintain their top ranking...
I think so, yes. And they'll be one of the first few teams taken in Pool C.
Quote from: MIAA in Exile on February 26, 2014, 01:10:35 PM
Why does the ECAC still exist and why isn't there a Midwest version?
It isn't the same entity it used to be... and there are plenty of rumors and speculation it may not last much longer. Furthermore, if you want to participate in the ECACs, you have to pay for the experience yourself. It isn't like the NCAAs who foot the bill.
New Rankings:
GREAT LAKES
1 Wooster 21-2
2 Hope 18-5
3 Bethany (W.V.) 20-4
4 Mount Union 20-5
5 DePauw 17-7
6 Wittenberg 19-6
7 Ohio Wesleyan 19-6
Full list: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/)
This must be exceptionally close, with head to heads being the difference
DePauw .738/.539/4-4
Wittenberg .760/.512/2-3
Ohio Wesleyan .760/.529/2-3
DPW beat Witt twice, Witt beat OWU twice, DPW-OWU split. DPW and OWU have beaten Wooster
Marietta probably needs Wooster to win Friday which might knock OWU behind them. I don't know if they could pass by the DePauw/Witt loser.
Marietta .750/.535/0-4
Final: John Carroll 83 Mount Union 81
Will Mount Union get a Pool C bid?
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 27, 2014, 09:30:07 PM
Final: John Carroll 83 Mount Union 81
Will Mount Union get a Pool C bid?
My initial gut reaction is no.
St. Vincent and Thomas More won their PrAC semi-final games.
St. Vincent at Thomas More for PrAC Championship Saturday.
Marietta 73 Wilmington 73 Going to Overtime at Marietta. Will there be another OAC upset?
Final: Wilmington 91 Marietta 82 OT
Upset city in the OAC tonight. Marietta not likely to get a Pool C bid either? The lack of defense in this game was amazing. Marietta kept leaving Wilmington shooters wide open for uncontested three pointers.
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 27, 2014, 10:22:36 PM
Final: Wilmington 91 Marietta 82
Upset city in the OAC tonight. Marietta not likely to get a Pool C bid either?
Marietta wasn't even ranked this week, so very doubtful.
My guess is that there will be too many teams (8) in the NCAC and CCIW that can be shuffled around ahead of Mount Union and Marrietta. At this point, arn't Augustana, Carthage, DePauw and Wittenberg still better choices as the #3 and #4 teams out of their conferences?
Quote from: sethteater on February 28, 2014, 07:53:30 AM
My guess is that there will be too many teams (8) in the NCAC and CCIW that can be shuffled around ahead of Mount Union and Marrietta. At this point, arn't Augustana, Carthage, DePauw and Wittenberg still better choices as the #3 and #4 teams out of their conferences?
Geography is not a consideration in the selection process (is that what you are getting at?)...just in bracketing.
Great Lakes is pretty straight forward now
NCAC Wooster lock, championship runner-up would be in decent shape but far from a lock unless its Wooster
MIAA Hope or Calvin, Hope is in decent shape for a 'C'
OAC John Carroll or Wilmington, Mt. Union on the bubble
AMCC winnner
PrAC St. Vincent or Thomas More
Tonight's NCAC semi-final loser between Witt/DPw is probably out, OWU would probably be out with a loss to Wooster.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2014, 07:57:30 AM
Quote from: sethteater on February 28, 2014, 07:53:30 AM
My guess is that there will be too many teams (8) in the NCAC and CCIW that can be shuffled around ahead of Mount Union and Marrietta. At this point, arn't Augustana, Carthage, DePauw and Wittenberg still better choices as the #3 and #4 teams out of their conferences?
Geography is not a consideration in the selection process (is that what you are getting at?)...just in bracketing.
Somewhat, but not completely. I'm saying in sifting through regional rankings, Mount Union slides behind (multiple) other bubble teams, especially with Bethany and Marietta losing (some of MU's best wins)...
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2014, 04:51:50 PM
This must be exceptionally close, with head to heads being the difference
DePauw .738/.539/4-4
Wittenberg .760/.512/2-3
Ohio Wesleyan .760/.529/2-3
I'm thinking that Wittenberg's victory tonight moves them ahead of DePauw in the pecking order, which means that the New Tigers would be at best the third NCAC team in the mix. If OWU wins their game tonight, they too would move ahead of DPU, making DePauw's Pool C chances very long indeed.
Put this in NCAC room, but figure it makes sense here, too:
That's probably it for DePauw but they'll be sitting somewhere near the edge of the bubble. They go into the selection with an 18-8 (.692) with a decent SOS and (probably) a 4-5 vRRO mark.
If they aren't selected, pretty easy to point to the losses to Oberlin, Allegheny and Kenyon. Win 2 of those 3 and they're 20-6 (.769) with the same peripherals; win all three and it's 21-5 (.808) and they'd probably be almost a lock.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:57:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2014, 04:51:50 PM
This must be exceptionally close, with head to heads being the difference
DePauw .738/.539/4-4
Wittenberg .760/.512/2-3
Ohio Wesleyan .760/.529/2-3
I'm thinking that Wittenberg's victory tonight moves them ahead of DePauw in the pecking order, which means that the New Tigers would be at best the third NCAC team in the mix. If OWU wins their game tonight, they too would move ahead of DPU, making DePauw's Pool C chances very long indeed.
As of this moment I see Wittenberg and DePauw as nearly dead-even. You could make a reasonable argument for either team (especially with the 2-1 h2h advantage for DePauw). But Wittenberg's SOS boost from playing in the finals could put them on top.
Marietta and Mount Union look to be solidly behind both of these, and probably OWU as well.
Wooster 78, OWU 67. That sound you hear is a bubble bursting in Delaware.
I'm betting Calvin slides into the final (hidden, super-secret) rankings. Bethany should fall below them, both they and Mount Union could fall out of the rankings completely.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 08:14:04 PM
I'm betting Calvin slides into the final (hidden, super-secret) rankings. Bethany should fall below them, both they and Mount Union could fall out of the rankings completely.
I agree. All of their D3 losses come to ranked regional opponents. Calvin entering the rankings would give Hope two more wins against ranked regional opponents, as well...
Quote from: sethteater on March 01, 2014, 08:16:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 08:14:04 PM
I'm betting Calvin slides into the final (hidden, super-secret) rankings. Bethany should fall below them, both they and Mount Union could fall out of the rankings completely.
I agree. All of their D3 losses come to ranked regional opponents. Calvin entering the rankings would give Hope two more wins against ranked regional opponents, as well...
I wouldn't be completely surprised if C-M-S falls out of the West Region rankings, so that one might not be, but yeah they didn't ever lose to a bad team.
Hope became ranked #2 in this region on Feb 19
Since then
Hope 3-1
DePauw 3-1
Wittenberg 4-1
Marietta 1-2
Mt. Union 1-2
Ohio Wes. 2-2
At the last ranking date of Feb 26. Hope had the highest SOS recorded of all Great Lakes teams, is there any conceivable reason Hope shouldn't be #2 in the region and thus first at the table or am I missing something?
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 03:01:56 AM
Hope became ranked #2 in this region on Feb 19
Since then
Hope 3-1
DePauw 3-1
Wittenberg 4-1
Marietta 1-2
Mt. Union 1-2
Ohio Wes. 2-2
At the last ranking date of Feb 26. Hope had the highest SOS recorded of all Great Lakes teams, is there any conceivable reason Hope shouldn't be #2 in the region and thus first at the table or am I missing something?
I don't think so. With Wooster getting the automatic qualifier, Hope has to be the first GL teams on the NCAA's super secret final rankings. I'm also assuming Calvin jumps onto the rankings, which would give Hope two more wins against regionally ranked opponents...
Hope/Wittenberg comparison
Hope .760/.535/ 2-4
Witt .750/.520/ 3-4
This is estimating SOS and assuming DePauw remains ranked. If Calvin slides into the final ranking that would give Hope 9 RRO's, even without that I don't know how you justify ranking Wittenberg ahead of Hope.
In fact I think its a better controversy between DePauw and Wittenberg
DePauw .692/.544/4-5
Witt .750/.520/3-4
DePauw has a 2-1 head-to-head advantage plus a win over top ranked Wooster. Without putting more emphasis on the most recent head-to-head result (Witt win) I think arguments could be made either way. If things are done correctly, one of these two should be among the final selections.
I don't know who is or would be arguing for Witt over Hope. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
DePauw could make some noise in the tourney if they get selected. They had a pretty good season against top-caliber teams, and there's no Oberlins or Alleghenys in the NCAA tournament field.
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Very likely...there are certainly plenty of examples in past tournaments where Pool C teams have hosted first round games.
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 01:11:15 PM
I don't know who is or would be arguing for Witt over Hope. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
DePauw could make some noise in the tourney if they get selected. They had a pretty good season against top-caliber teams, and there's no Oberlins or Alleghenys in the NCAA tournament field.
Nervous Dutchmen, that's who.
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Would be a little unfortunate for the Hope women, who are 27-0 and surely deserving to host. But it is the men's turn to host this year if both are selected. Not begrudging the men at all... but have to acknowledge that the women are deserving
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 02, 2014, 05:39:53 PM
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Would be a little unfortunate for the Hope women, who are 27-0 and surely deserving to host. But it is the men's turn to host this year if both are selected. Not begrudging the men at all... but have to acknowledge that the women are deserving
Which brings up something. I wonder if Hope could decline to host the men.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 02, 2014, 05:39:53 PM
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Would be a little unfortunate for the Hope women, who are 27-0 and surely deserving to host. But it is the men's turn to host this year if both are selected. Not begrudging the men at all... but have to acknowledge that the women are deserving
Which brings up something. I wonder if Hope could decline to host the men.
Wouldn't they just not apply to host on the men's side?
Quote from: ziggy on March 02, 2014, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 02, 2014, 05:39:53 PM
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Would be a little unfortunate for the Hope women, who are 27-0 and surely deserving to host. But it is the men's turn to host this year if both are selected. Not begrudging the men at all... but have to acknowledge that the women are deserving
Which brings up something. I wonder if Hope could decline to host the men.
Wouldn't they just not apply to host on the men's side?
That would be one way to do it, but I'm pretty certain Hope has applied to host. I'm just curious if they or any school would consider declining.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on March 02, 2014, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 02, 2014, 05:39:53 PM
Quote from: hope1 on March 02, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
i see hope hosting the first round game this week
Would be a little unfortunate for the Hope women, who are 27-0 and surely deserving to host. But it is the men's turn to host this year if both are selected. Not begrudging the men at all... but have to acknowledge that the women are deserving
Which brings up something. I wonder if Hope could decline to host the men.
Wouldn't they just not apply to host on the men's side?
That would be one way to do it, but I'm pretty certain Hope has applied to host. I'm just curious if they or any school would consider declining.
I think you apply, just in case they select the men to host and not the women. Hope's women have been through that before - an undefeated team sent on the road.
Seems to me there was a school that did decline several years back - or I'm just remembering a discussion about that possibility
It seems counter-intuitive to have the men decline to host. The women's team is much more likely to survive a road trip than the men. It seems you would want the men to have the friendly confines of home court.
Quote from: northb on March 03, 2014, 07:53:07 AM
It seems counter-intuitive to have the men decline to host. The women's team is much more likely to survive a road trip than the men. It seems you would want the men to have the friendly confines of home court.
I think that if the men are fortunate enough to be selected to host, they should just gratefully accept and not make this overly complicated. Some day the shoe may be on the other foot in a year when the women have the preference.
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 03, 2014, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: northb on March 03, 2014, 07:53:07 AM
It seems counter-intuitive to have the men decline to host. The women's team is much more likely to survive a road trip than the men. It seems you would want the men to have the friendly confines of home court.
I think that if the men are fortunate enough to be selected to host, they should just gratefully accept and not make this overly complicated. Some day the shoe may be on the other foot in a year when the women have the preference.
Does anyone else think it's funny that there is even a question over whether Hope would/should decline to host so the girls team can? Forget Ann Arbor, sounds like Holland is the Epicenter of Progressive Culture!
Also, it seems to me the "declining" would create unwanted precident, even if it was the men declining for the women. The entire purpose of the every other year rule is to create equality. Obviously the idea of the men declining for the women shows how much closer Holland is to "equal" in terms of guys and girls basketball than other places. However, what happens if the guys do decline and next year the roles are reversed (not impossible to imagine with Hope's guys starting 3 underclassman and NVA with another year of eligibility that he has yet to formally anounce whether he will use)... Do we really believe the NCAA would allow the women to "decline" so the men could host?!
Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 08:15:17 AM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 03, 2014, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: northb on March 03, 2014, 07:53:07 AM
It seems counter-intuitive to have the men decline to host. The women's team is much more likely to survive a road trip than the men. It seems you would want the men to have the friendly confines of home court.
I think that if the men are fortunate enough to be selected to host, they should just gratefully accept and not make this overly complicated. Some day the shoe may be on the other foot in a year when the women have the preference.
Does anyone else think it's funny that there is even a question over whether Hope would/should decline to host so the girls team can? Forget Ann Arbor, sounds like Holland is the Epicenter of Progressive Culture!
I think there is nothing unusual about the discussion - and for me gender has nothing to do with it other than the fact that it means there are two teams from the same college with a potential hosting conflict between the two. For me, it would theoretically be the same discussion if Hope had two men's hoops teams that both potentially could be selected to host. Or teams from two different sports with a hosting conflict.
That said, there is already a rule for precisely this situation (men/women alternating year preference) so I think they should just go with that if Hope is fortunate enough to be offered to host for both teams.
Turn one of Ohio Wesleyan's losses to Wittenberg into a win and they're a slam dunk to get in. Instead, they'll probably have to hope DePauw and Wittenberg both get in with time to spare.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
Turn one of Ohio Wesleyan's losses to Wittenberg into a win and they're a slam dunk to get in. Instead, they'll probably have to hope DePauw and Wittenberg both get in with time to spare.
or don't lose to 8-17 Wabash
Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
Turn one of Ohio Wesleyan's losses to Wittenberg into a win and they're a slam dunk to get in. Instead, they'll probably have to hope DePauw and Wittenberg both get in with time to spare.
or don't lose to 8-17 Wabash
But it's the 0-2 to Wittenberg that's going to drag them back in the regional rankings.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
Turn one of Ohio Wesleyan's losses to Wittenberg into a win and they're a slam dunk to get in. Instead, they'll probably have to hope DePauw and Wittenberg both get in with time to spare.
or don't lose to 8-17 Wabash
But it's the 0-2 to Wittenberg that's going to drag them back in the regional rankings.
That is true.
While we're on the subject, DePauw is the one kicking themselves. Loses to Oberlin and Allegheny.
Either they missed the field with those two losses or lost great seeding because of them.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
Turn one of Ohio Wesleyan's losses to Wittenberg into a win and they're a slam dunk to get in. Instead, they'll probably have to hope DePauw and Wittenberg both get in with time to spare.
or don't lose to 8-17 Wabash
But it's the 0-2 to Wittenberg that's going to drag them back in the regional rankings.
Bishops were up 20 on Witt with less than 15 minutes to go in their first meeting at Witt, but Witt came all the way back to force overtime. OWU also had a 6-point lead early in overtime, then Witt scored the final 8 points of the game to win by 2.
Hope in and hosting Penn-State Behrend, Witt also in and playing Calvin at Wash U.
Ohio Wesleyan is IN and will face St. Norbert at Illinois Wesleyan.
Wow, three NCAC teams in so far!
DePauw isn't going to make it, no place to go that wouldn't require a flight
no Carthage either
So Hope, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan get Pool C bids from the Great Lakes. DePauw must have been at the table.
OWU coach Mike DeWitt must be surprised. In his post-game interview after the NCAC semifinal loss to Wooster he said he told his players that they had had a great season and shouldn't be disappointed in a 20-win year that ended with a road loss to a top-10 team. In his tone, he clearly wasn't expecting to get a Pool C bid. Now to get ready for St. Norbert!
If the top seeds (ie hosts) advance to the Sweet 16, hosting would come down to IWU/Hope since WashU to Wooster is 500 miles. I have to think IWU has the inside track to host then.
If anyone but Washington wins that Regional its probably going to be at Wooster.
Geneseo winning could really make sectional hosting interesting.
Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 01:17:37 PM
If the top seeds (ie hosts) advance to the Sweet 16, hosting would come down to IWU/Hope since WashU to Wooster is 500 miles. I have to think IWU has the inside track to host then.
If anyone but Washington wins that Regional its probably going to be at Wooster.
Geneseo winning could really make sectional hosting interesting.
Also, Hope women could get the priority second weekend host. That's why I'm rooting for Calvin-St. Norbert-Hope-Wooster to all advance! You'd have to host that one at Calvin.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 01:17:37 PM
If the top seeds (ie hosts) advance to the Sweet 16, hosting would come down to IWU/Hope since WashU to Wooster is 500 miles. I have to think IWU has the inside track to host then.
If anyone but Washington wins that Regional its probably going to be at Wooster.
Geneseo winning could really make sectional hosting interesting.
Also, Hope women could get the priority second weekend host. That's why I'm rooting for Calvin-St. Norbert-Hope-Wooster to all advance! You'd have to host that one at Calvin.
Very good point!
St Norbert to Wooster is over 500 miles, so if both advance, then Calvin or Wheaton would likely host (assuming Hope's women advance.)
If PSU-Behrend, St. Norbert, Washington and Geneseo win..........someone at the NCAA is losing their job for allowing so many flights.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 01:25:15 PM
Also, Hope women could get the priority second weekend host. That's why I'm rooting for Calvin-St. Norbert-Hope-Wooster to all advance! You'd have to host that one at Calvin.
The Hope women are in a mess of a bracket. Geography may take them away from home again on the second weekend (assuming they get through this weekend).
Regional rankings aren't for a couple weeks yet but here are the teams with regional records .500 or above. Looks like a pretty difficult region to get a ranking this year.
Marietta 13-0
Ohio Wes. 11-2
Wooster 11-2
PSU-Behrend 11-2
Hilbert 10-2
----------------------------------.800
DePauw 10-3
Defiance 9-3*
Mt. St. Joseph 9-3
John Carroll 9-3
Bald-Wall 9-3
Calvin 8-3
Albion 7-3
-----------------------------------.700
Mt. Union 9-4
St. Vincent 9-4
Thomas More 9-4
Thiel 6-3
Denison 8-5
Hiram 8-5
Hanover 8-5
Medaille 7-4
Wabash 6-4*
-------------------------------.600
Rose-Hul. 7-5*
Trine 7-5*
Hope 6-5
Waynesburg 7-7
Oberlin 6-6
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games between the above teams this week.
Today:
Albion @ Hope
Ohio Wesleyan @ Wabash
Wooster @ Hiram
Mt. St. Joseph @ Hanover
Saturday:
Oberlin @ Hiram
DePauw @ Ohio Wesleyan
Rose-Hulman @ Mt. St. Joseph
John Carroll @ Mt. Union
St. Vincent @ Thomas More
PSU-Behrend @ Hilbert
KS--has his RPI rankings on his blog http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games vs. Year 1 and Year 2 Provisionals do not count in the primary criteria (Year 3 and Year 4 opponents count). They do count in the secondary criteria, however.
I believe these games
can count toward the 70% in-region rule, but I'm not 100% sure if that's been officially adopted yet.
Here's this year's handbook, if anyone's interested: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf
Here's the Great Lakes Committee for the 2015 season:
Kevin Vande Streek, chair, Calvin, Michigan Intercol.
Britt Moore, Pittsburgh-Bradford, AMCC
Brian Lane, Transylvania, Heartland
Sam Hargraves Alma, Michigan Intercol.
Isaiah Cavaco, Oberlin, North Coast
K.C. Hunt, Wilmington, OAC
Jeff Santarsiero Geneva, Presidents' AC
Wabash 75 OWU 70 so I guess Wabash is at least kind of good, apologies for doubting them.
Mt. St. Joseph 64 Hanover 48
Hope 80 Albion 55
Wooster currently blowing out Hiram
Update through Wednesday. Bolded are teams with SOS >.500
Marietta 14-0
------------------------.900
Case Western Reserve 8-1
Wooster 12-2
Penn State-Behrend 12-2
Hilbert 10-2
Ohio Wesleyan 11-3
------------------------.800
Mount St. Joseph 10-3
Baldwin Wallace 10-3
John Carroll 10-3
Calvin 9-3
St. Vincent 10-4
Thomas More 10-4
Mount Union 10-4
DePauw 10-4
Carnegie Mellon 7-3
------------------------.700
Defiance 9-4
Albion 7-4
Trine 8-5
Rose-Hulman 8-5
Thiel 6-4
Wabash 6-4
------------------------.600
Hope 7-5
Medaille 7-5
Hanover 8-6
Denison 8-6
Hiram 8-6
Waynesburg 9-7
Ohio Northern 7-7
Pitt-Bradford 6-6
Updated through Sunday. I'm kind of assuming SOS hasn't changed much for anyone so I left the bolded teams the same and added Allegheny.
Marietta 15-0
Case Western Reserve 10-1
------------------------.900
Wooster 13-2
Penn State-Behrend 13-2
Ohio Wesleyan 12-3
------------------------.800
Mount St. Joseph 11-3
Baldwin Wallace 11-3
Calvin 10-3
Hilbert 10-3
St. Vincent 11-4
Mount Union 11-4
John Carroll 10-4
Defiance 10-4
------------------------.700
Thomas More 10-5
DePauw 10-5
Carnegie Mellon 8-4
Trine 9-5
Thiel 7-4
Wabash 7-4
Hope 8-5
Medaille 8-5
------------------------.600
Waynesburg 10-7
Albion 7-5
Rose-Hulman 8-6
Hanover 8-7
Denison 8-7
Hiram 9-6
Pitt-Bradford 7-6
Allegheny 7-7
-----------------------------------.500
Ohio Northern 7-8
We're too the point where Marietta would need a losing record the rest of the way to miss out on a Pool C. Certainly something worse than what they've shown to this point in the season.
Case Reserve plays 6 of its next 8 against Emory, Chicago and Washington home and away. Including 4 straight with Chicago and WashU. These 4 weeks will tell a lot about them.
Games between the above teams next week:
Monday:
PSU-Behrend @ Hilbert
Medaille @ Pitt-Bradford
Wednesday:
Baldwin Wallace @ John Carroll
Mt. Union @ Marietta
Calvin @ Trine
Wabash @ DePauw
Wooster @ Allegheny
Hiram @ Denison
Hanover @ Rose-Hulman
St. Vincent @ Thiel
Thurday:
Hilbert @ Medaille
Friday:
Case Reserve @ Emory
Saturday:
Albion @ Trine
DePauw @ Wooster
Ohio Wesleyan @ Denison
Defiance @ Hanover
Big Wednesday night in the OAC with the top 4 playing each other. Lots of meaningful games this week in the region, should get a better picture after next weekend.
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2015, 08:23:03 PM
Updated through Sunday. I'm kind of assuming SOS hasn't changed much for anyone so I left the bolded teams the same and added Allegheny.
Marietta 15-0
Case Western Reserve 10-1
------------------------.900
Wooster 13-2
Penn State-Behrend 13-2
Ohio Wesleyan 12-3
------------------------.800
Mount St. Joseph 11-3
Baldwin Wallace 11-3
Calvin 10-3
Hilbert 10-3
St. Vincent 11-4
Mount Union 11-4
John Carroll 10-4
Defiance 10-4
------------------------.700
Thomas More 10-5
DePauw 10-5
Carnegie Mellon 8-4
Trine 9-5
Thiel 7-4
Wabash 7-4
Hope 8-5
Medaille 8-5
------------------------.600
Waynesburg 10-7
Albion 7-5
Rose-Hulman 8-6
Hanover 8-7
Denison 8-7
Hiram 9-6
Pitt-Bradford 7-6
Bethany 8-8
Allegheny 7-7
-----------------------------------.500
Ohio Northern 7-8
Adding Bethany at 8-8. Bolding Allegheny.
Mount St. Joseph, Defiance, and Trine sink below .500 on the SOS.
Here's the winners in these key games
Monday:
PSU-Behrend @ Hilbert
Medaille @ Pitt-Bradford
Wednesday:
Baldwin Wallace @ John Carroll
Mt. Union @ Marietta
Calvin @ Trine
Wabash @ DePauw
Wooster @ Allegheny
Hiram @ Denison
Hanover @ Rose-Hulman
St. Vincent @ Thiel
Comparative scores lead me to believe this region is really tight this year, not really a standout team despite Marietta's unbeaten record. Rankings and seedings will be interesting to watch.
Big upset in the HCAC
Franklin 76 Mt. St. Joseph 71 ---Franklin was 3-12 coming into that one, should be really hard for MSJ to get a decent ranking with that loss and weak SOS.
Afternoon results of interest:
DePauw 62
Wooster 63
Ohio Wesleyan 70
Denison 73
Winners in bold
Thurday:
Hilbert @ Medaille
Friday:
Case Reserve @ Emory
Saturday:
Albion @ Trine
DePauw @ Wooster
Ohio Wesleyan @ Denison
Defiance @ Hanover
Bethany beat St. Vincent 56-53
Thru Sunday 1/25 I left the bolds alone from the week before. 9 loss teams Waynesburg, Ohio Northern and Allegheny are dropped with no realistic chance at ranking or Pool C.
Marietta 17-0
------------------------.900
Wooster 15-2
Penn State-Behrend 16-2
Case Western Reserve 11-2
------------------------.800
Ohio Wesleyan 13-4
John Carroll 12-4
Mount St. Joseph 12-4
Baldwin Wallace 12-4
Calvin 11-4
St. Vincent 12-5
Mount Union 12-5
Thomas More 12-5
------------------------.700
Medaille 11-5
Hilbert 11-5
Trine 11-5
Defiance 11-5
Hope 10-5
DePauw 11-6
Thiel 8-5
------------------------.600
Denison 10-7
Carnegie Mellon 8-6
Rose-Hulman 9-7
Bethany 10-8
Wabash 7-6
Pitt-Bradford 8-7
Hanover 9-8
Hiram 9-8
Albion 7-7
-----------------------------------.500
This Week's Key Games
Wednesday 1/28
Pitt-Bradford (9-7) @ PSU-Behrend (16-2)
Hanover (9-8) @ Mt. St. Joseph (12-4)
Albion (7-7) @ Calvin (11-4)
Baldwin-Wallace (12-4) @ Mt. Union (12-5)
Wooster (15-2) @ Ohio Wesleyan (13-4)
Denison (10-7) @ DePauw (11-6)
Friday 1/30
Carnegie-Mellon (8-6) @ WashU
Case Western (11-2) @ Chicago
Saturday 1/31
Rose-Hulman (9-7) @ Defiance (11-5)
Trine (11-5) @ Hope (10-5)
Thiel (10-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
Baldwin-Wallace (12-4) @ Marietta (17-0)
Ohio Wesleyan (13-4) @ Hiram (9-8)
Wooster (15-2) @ Wabash (7-6)
Sunday 2/1
Carnegie Mellon (8-6) @ Chicago
Case Western (11-2) @ WashU
Really big weeks for Baldwin-Wallace and Case Western. I think Marietta needs 3 wins to be a lock, but realistically with their schedule remaining they're a virtual lock at this point.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2015, 09:58:28 AM
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games vs. Year 1 and Year 2 Provisionals do not count in the primary criteria (Year 3 and Year 4 opponents count). They do count in the secondary criteria, however.
I believe these games can count toward the 70% in-region rule, but I'm not 100% sure if that's been officially adopted yet.
Here's this year's handbook, if anyone's interested: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf
Circling back on this a bit late, so I apologize, but they adjusted this rule so that games against provisional schools will count. I know, for example, schools in the CAC last year ended up being hurt by the fact their two games against Southern Virginia didn't count for anything leaving them two games short essentially when they had to play two games. Now, I can't find this change in writing, but I am looking for it. I also may be confusing this with the 70% rule pointed out above, but I am pretty sure there was a more sweeping change to this rule in all sports.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 27, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2015, 09:58:28 AM
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games vs. Year 1 and Year 2 Provisionals do not count in the primary criteria (Year 3 and Year 4 opponents count). They do count in the secondary criteria, however.
I believe these games can count toward the 70% in-region rule, but I'm not 100% sure if that's been officially adopted yet.
Here's this year's handbook, if anyone's interested: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf
Circling back on this a bit late, so I apologize, but they adjusted this rule so that games against provisional schools will count. I know, for example, schools in the CAC last year ended up being hurt by the fact their two games against Southern Virginia didn't count for anything leaving them two games short essentially when they had to play two games. Now, I can't find this change in writing, but I am looking for it. I also may be confusing this with the 70% rule pointed out above, but I am pretty sure there was a more sweeping change to this rule in all sports.
I think that's the 70% rule. This year's handbook is still saying 3rd and 4th years count.
Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary
criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Updated thru Wed 1/28
Marietta 18-0
------------------------.900
Penn State-Behrend 17-2
Case Western Reserve 11-2
Wooster 15-3
------------------------.800
Ohio Wesleyan 14-4
John Carroll 13-4
Mount St. Joseph 13-4
Calvin 12-4
Mount Union 13-5
Thomas More 13-5
Medaille 12-5
St. Vincent 12-5
Baldwin Wallace 12-5
Hilbert 12-5
Trine 12-5
Defiance 12-5
------------------------.700
Hope 11-5
DePauw 12-6
Thiel 9-5
------------------------.600
Bethany 11-8
Carnegie Mellon 8-6
Denison 10-8
Rose-Hulman 9-8
Hanover 9-9
Hiram 9-9
Pitt-Bradford 8-8
Wabash 7-7
-----------------------------------.500
Albion 7-8
This Week's Key Games
Wednesday 1/28
Pitt-Bradford (9-7) @ PSU-Behrend (16-2)
Hanover (9-8) @ Mt. St. Joseph (12-4)
Albion (7-7) @ Calvin (11-4)
Baldwin-Wallace (12-4) @ Mt. Union (12-5)
Wooster (15-2) @ Ohio Wesleyan (13-4)
Denison (10-7) @ DePauw (11-6)
Friday 1/30
Carnegie-Mellon (8-6) @ WashU
Case Western (11-2) @ Chicago
Saturday 1/31
Rose-Hulman (9-7) @ Defiance (11-5)
Trine (11-5) @ Hope (10-5)
Thiel (10-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
Baldwin-Wallace (12-4) @ Marietta (17-0)
Ohio Wesleyan (13-4) @ Hiram (9-8)
Wooster (15-2) @ Wabash (7-6)
Sunday 2/1
Carnegie Mellon (8-6) @ Chicago
Case Western (11-2) @ WashU
If we were ranking teams this weekend the 5 thru 9 spots would be really interesing.
Pick 9 of 10 right now:
Calvin
Case Western Reserve
Hope
John Carroll
Marietta
Mount Union
Ohio Wesleyan
Penn State-Behrend
St. Vincent
Wooster
Top four spots look pretty straight forward:
1. Marietta
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve
as sac says, 5-9 gets messy. I'd go:
5. John Carroll
6. St. Vincent
7. Calvin
8. Hope
9. Mount Union
That leaves 17-2 Penn-State Behrend out, but Calvin has the h2h over Hope who has the h2h over Mount Union, and they just kind of get pushed out with a .467 SOS.
Big two weekends for Case Western. 4 potential RRO games with WashU/Chicago. 3-1 would put them in a really good position in the GL Rankings, maybe even 2-2 might do that.
Wesleyan's win over Wooster last night was potentially massive for them. No matter what happens they'll be at worst 2-1 against one of the top teams in the region.
My top 10 would be almost identical to KnightSlappy but I move St. Vincent farther down. I keep them ahead of Mount Union however due to their win over the Purple Raiders on a neutral court.
1. Marietta
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve
5. John Carroll
6. Calvin
7. Hope
8. St. Vincent
9. Mount Union
10. Penn State Behrend
Case loses to Chicago 81-72
Wabash knocks off Wooster, maybe throwing a bit of chaos into the swirl?
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2015, 07:58:55 PM
Wabash knocks off Wooster, maybe throwing a bit of chaos into the swirl?
And they knocked off OWU earlier in the year as well.
Upset Weekend at the top of the Great Lakes region. 4 of the top 6 or 7 teams lost as Wooster, Case, JCU, and Calvin all go down. Marietta and Ohio Wesleyan are now solidly at the top for this week. After that, roll the dice for the #3 spot.
Updated thru Sun 2/1 Hanover and Hiram drop out with their 10th D3 losses. I'll hang on to the nine loss teams for another week, but realistically they have little chance at a ranking slot or Pool C. Added Anderson, Transylvania and Pitt-Greensburg
Marietta 19-0
------------------------.900
Penn State-Behrend 18-2
Case Western Reserve 12-3
------------------------.800
Ohio Wesleyan 15-4
Wooster 15-4
Mount St. Joseph 14-4
Mount Union 14-5
John Carroll 13-5
Medaille 13-5
St. Vincent 13-5
Thomas More 13-5
Hilbert 13-5
Defiance 13-5
Hope 12-5
Calvin 12-5
------------------------.700
DePauw 13-6
Baldwin Wallace 12-6
Trine 12-6
Thiel 9-6
Bethany 12-8
------------------------.600
Denison 11-8
Anderson 10-8
Transylvania 10-8
Pitt-Greensburg 10-9
Wabash 8-7
Rose-Hulman 9-9
Albion 8-8
Carnegie Mellon 8-8
-----------------------------------.500
Pitt-Bradford 8-9
This Week's Key Games
Wednesday 1/28
Pitt-Bradford (8-9) @ Hilbert (13-5)
Thomas More (13-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
St. Vincent (13-5) @ Waynesburg (11-9)
Anderson (10-8) @ Defiance (13-5)
Mt. St. Joseph (14-4) @ Transylvania (10-8)
Hope (12-5) @ Calvin (12-5)
Friday 1/30
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 1/31
Pitt-Greensburg (10-9) @ Medaille (13-5)
Thomas More (13-5) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (13-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-4)
Anderson (10-8) @ Transylvania (10-8)
Hope (12-5) @ Albion (8-8)
Denison (11-8) @ Wooster (15-4)
Sunday 2/1
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
It should be a pretty quiet week in the OAC and NCAC. The MIAA has a couple under the radar games with Adrian(6-9) that could have impact. The HCAC has 4 pretty important games for their standings including Saturday's Defiance/Mt. St. Joseph game which could ultimately decide the title.
If we ranked today, PSU-Behrend has to be ranked right? Like Wooster last year Marietta now has a pretty big cushion as the #1 ranked team.
Quote from: sac on February 01, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
It should be a pretty quiet week in the OAC and NCAC.
Wittenberg may not be in the running for a ranking or a C bid, but their game Wednesday vs. OWU is hu-u-u-u-uge. If the Tigers win, it shakes up the NCAC races for both first and third, and if they lose, it all but guarantees their first losing season in nearly 60 years. (They *could* lose, then win out and reach the NCAC final, where they would be 14-13, but that's somewhat less than likely.)
Case gets an impressive road win at Washington U.
1. Marietta
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Case Western
4. Wooster
5. Penn St. Behrend
6. Hope
7. St. Vincent
8. Mount Union
9. John Carroll
10. Calvin
Case is now tied with Chicago for the lead in the UAA. They host Chicago and WashU next weekend and could be in a great position for the UAA's automatic bid. If that happened it would greatly help the Pool C situation in the Great Lakes.
KS' regional rankings updated through Sunday. http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html
Could be back to a 1 'C' bid region this year.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 27, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2015, 09:58:28 AM
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games vs. Year 1 and Year 2 Provisionals do not count in the primary criteria (Year 3 and Year 4 opponents count). They do count in the secondary criteria, however.
I believe these games can count toward the 70% in-region rule, but I'm not 100% sure if that's been officially adopted yet.
Here's this year's handbook, if anyone's interested: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf
Circling back on this a bit late, so I apologize, but they adjusted this rule so that games against provisional schools will count. I know, for example, schools in the CAC last year ended up being hurt by the fact their two games against Southern Virginia didn't count for anything leaving them two games short essentially when they had to play two games. Now, I can't find this change in writing, but I am looking for it. I also may be confusing this with the 70% rule pointed out above, but I am pretty sure there was a more sweeping change to this rule in all sports.
I think that's the 70% rule. This year's handbook is still saying 3rd and 4th years count.
Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary
criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Yeah... I know what the manual says, but something has changed. I just can't find it... but something has changed so that games against provisional members counts for in-region and thus WL% for example. See Southern Virginia in the CAC as the example. I need to reach out and find this answer because I can't seem to find it in my research.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2015, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 27, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 14, 2015, 09:58:28 AM
Quote from: sac on January 14, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
*--all have wins over Ill. Tech I did not count due to Ill. Tech's 1st year provisional status. (unless someone can tell me they should count)
Games vs. Year 1 and Year 2 Provisionals do not count in the primary criteria (Year 3 and Year 4 opponents count). They do count in the secondary criteria, however.
I believe these games can count toward the 70% in-region rule, but I'm not 100% sure if that's been officially adopted yet.
Here's this year's handbook, if anyone's interested: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf
Circling back on this a bit late, so I apologize, but they adjusted this rule so that games against provisional schools will count. I know, for example, schools in the CAC last year ended up being hurt by the fact their two games against Southern Virginia didn't count for anything leaving them two games short essentially when they had to play two games. Now, I can't find this change in writing, but I am looking for it. I also may be confusing this with the 70% rule pointed out above, but I am pretty sure there was a more sweeping change to this rule in all sports.
I think that's the 70% rule. This year's handbook is still saying 3rd and 4th years count.
Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary
criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Yeah... I know what the manual says, but something has changed. I just can't find it... but something has changed so that games against provisional members counts for in-region and thus WL% for example. See Southern Virginia in the CAC as the example. I need to reach out and find this answer because I can't seem to find it in my research.
Southern Virginia is Year 3. Year 3 and 4 have always counted in the selection criteria.
Yeah... that is definitely where I am getting bogged down. Will continue to research.
Southern Virginia counted as a D-III/in-region game for football. The only question remaining would be about the 70% and a very small number of first- and second-year schools (Penn College, Bryn Athyn ... there's always one I'm forgetting ...).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2015, 02:56:03 PM
Southern Virginia counted as a D-III/in-region game for football. The only question remaining would be about the 70% and a very small number of first- and second-year schools (Penn College, Bryn Athyn ... there's always one I'm forgetting ...).
The formidable Illinois Tech
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2015, 08:50:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2015, 02:56:03 PM
Southern Virginia counted as a D-III/in-region game for football. The only question remaining would be about the 70% and a very small number of first- and second-year schools (Penn College, Bryn Athyn ... there's always one I'm forgetting ...).
The formidable Illinois Tech
More specifically from the GL Region Trine, Wabash, Rose-Hulman, Anderson and Defiance all had games vs Ill Tech. Outside the region Rockford, MSOE, Claremont-MS, Blackburn, Chicago, Lakeland, Northland and Aurora. Northland has a 2nd game next week and Carthage a game with them in 2 weeks.
Whether the Ill Tech games count affects a lot of teams and anyone who played these schools above.
Updated thru Wed 2/4
Marietta 20-0
Penn State-Behrend 18-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 16-4
Wooster 16-4
Case Western Reserve 12-3
------------------------.800
Mount Union 15-5
John Carroll 14-5
Medaille 14-5
Mount St. Joseph 14-5
Hilbert 14-5
Defiance 14-5
Calvin 13-5
DePauw 14-6
------------------------.700
St. Vincent 13-6
Thomas More 13-6
Baldwin Wallace 13-6
Trine 13-6
Hope 12-6
Bethany 13-8
Denison 12-8
Thiel 9-6
------------------------.600
Transylvania 11-8
Pitt-Greensburg 11-9
Anderson 10-9
Rose-Hulman 10-9
Wabash 8-7
Albion 9-8
Carnegie Mellon 8-8
-----------------------------------.500
Pitt-Bradford 8-10
This Week's Key Games --Winners in bold
Wednesday 1/28
Pitt-Bradford (8-9) @ Hilbert (13-5)
Thomas More (13-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
St. Vincent (13-5) @ Waynesburg (11-9)
Anderson (10-8) @ Defiance (13-5)
Mt. St. Joseph (14-4) @ Transylvania (10-8)
Hope (12-5) @ Calvin (12-5)
Friday 1/30
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 1/31
Pitt-Greensburg (11-9) @ Medaille (14-5)
Thomas More (13-6) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (14-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-5)
Anderson (10-9) @ Transylvania (11-8)
Hope (12-6) @ Albion (9-8)
Denison (12-8) @ Wooster (16-4)
Sunday 2/1
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
My new top 10 with some changes in the bottom half after Calvin beats Hope and St. V goes down.
1. Marietta
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Case Western
4. Wooster
5. Penn St. Behrend
6. Mount Union
7. John Carroll
8. Calvin
9. Hope
10. St. Vincent
I think the top four teams are set, but I don't think the order is. Right now there's a ~.060 SOS gap between Marietta and OWU/Case. (Marietta's SOS will be below .500 when the vote comes).
If the vote was today, Ohio Wesleyan would look good with results versus regionally ranked opponents. Right now it looks like they'll get credit for 3-1 (Wooster x2, Calvin, loss to Hope). Not a forgone conclusion that Calvin/Hope get ranked, but I think they will, barring a losses on Saturday.
Marietta will have 2-0 (John Carroll, St. Vincent), neither looking like in the top half of the region.
Case has games against Chicago and Wash U this weekend. 2-0 there would have them fighting for a possible top vote. Depending on how the weekend plays out, you could see almost any order (except Wooster over OWU in any capacity).
5-11 (only 9 will be ranked), draw names out of a hat. You could convince me of just about any order. Except Calvin probably has to be above Hope now given 2-0 head-to-head.
How do you compare Penn State-Behrend (good WP, bad SOS) with Calvin (eh WP, eh SOS) with St. Vincent (bad WP, good SOS)? I don't get how the RACs continue to do this without a firm WP/SOS weight.
Ouija boards...
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 05, 2015, 03:35:43 PM
I think the top four teams are set, but I don't think the order is. Right now there's a ~.060 SOS gap between Marietta and OWU/Case. (Marietta's SOS will be below .500 when the vote comes).
If the vote was today, Ohio Wesleyan would look good with results versus regionally ranked opponents. Right now it looks like they'll get credit for 3-1 (Wooster x2, Calvin, loss to Hope). Not a forgone conclusion that Calvin/Hope get ranked, but I think they will, barring a losses on Saturday.
Marietta will have 2-0 (John Carroll, St. Vincent), neither looking like in the top half of the region.
Case has games against Chicago and Wash U this weekend. 2-0 there would have them fighting for a possible top vote. Depending on how the weekend plays out, you could see almost any order (except Wooster over OWU in any capacity).
5-11 (only 9 will be ranked), draw names out of a hat. You could convince me of just about any order. Except Calvin probably has to be above Hope now given 2-0 head-to-head.
How do you compare Penn State-Behrend (good WP, bad SOS) with Calvin (eh WP, eh SOS) with St. Vincent (bad WP, good SOS)? I don't get how the RACs continue to do this without a firm WP/SOS weight.
I've been thinking about Marietta and that they might not get the #1 ranking in this region. A good precedent is Albertus Magnus in the Northeast Region last year. 27-1 overall record ranked 8th in the final regular season regional poll with an SOS around .475. Granted tougher region but I wouldn't be too surprised to see Marietta not in the the #1 slot next week.
Marietta will need Mt. Union and maybe even John Carroll to be ranked for their RRO's.
PSU-Behrend was also 22-4 at the final regular season poll with an SOS of .455 and didn't get ranked in this region.
Dunno how an undefeated team in a league like the OAC wouldn't be top in the region. That's just ridiculous.
Massey ratings have the OAC the #8 conference in the country. GNAC right now is 41st. I know you're not talking about this year with Albertus Magnus, but still...huge difference in those conferences.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 05, 2015, 07:51:18 PM
Dunno how an undefeated team in a league like the OAC wouldn't be top in the region. That's just ridiculous.
Massey ratings have the OAC the #8 conference in the country. GNAC right now is 41st. I know you're not talking about this year with Albertus Magnus, but still...huge difference in those conferences.
ET - GNAC and Albertus M not in your Great Lakes Region - SAC used last season's lofty Albertus numbers as an example why Marietta might not be ranked #1 particularly I the final ranking
On the outside looking in - Marietta has the W's but not much else, the SOS low, OWP below .500 and the OOWP of .530 suggests (without looking at their schedule) more opponents that had with losing records or were cupcakes
SAC is right (as usual) you want Mt. U and J Carroll to get ranked
We'll see. You missed my point. What region the GNAC in is irrelevant at best, and argues against him at worst.
It's not Marietta's fault that no one would play them. Marietta beat Hanover handily, Wooster lost to them. Beat ECSU on a neutral court. Wesleyan lost to Denison, which Marietta has had no trouble beating even before John really got the program going.
I think last year the NCAC schools saw MC was getting too close to beating them and knew what was coming this year. I can't imagine it's a coincidence that it went from 2-4 NCAC schools on the Marietta schedule to 0 this year.
If MC is undefeated, and probably even if they have 1 loss, they'll be #1 in the region, regardless of what this board is hoping for. I could maybe see the point if someone in a better league had a comparable number of losses. But neither of those is true. The NCAC is down (rated 14th), Wittenberg is bad for the first time in the history of basketball, and Wesleyan and Wooster are struggling against the likes of Denison, Wabash, Kenyon, Hanover. Wesleyan has been a bad road team for two months (basically since beating Wooster on the road). L L L W L W, the last by a whopping 6 points over Hiram.
I'm sure with a road record they would love to not have to deal with 2,000 screaming Pioneers fans at one of the best homecourts in D-III, but right now the only people that anything to say about that is Marietta. They win, they're the top seed, case closed.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
We'll see. You missed my point. What region the GNAC in is irrelevant at best, and argues against him at worst.
It's not Marietta's fault that no one would play them. Marietta beat Hanover handily, Wooster lost to them. Beat ECSU on a neutral court. Wesleyan lost to Denison, which Marietta has had no trouble beating even before John really got the program going.
I think last year the NCAC schools saw MC was getting too close to beating them and knew what was coming this year. I can't imagine it's a coincidence that it went from 2-4 NCAC schools on the Marietta schedule to 0 this year.
Those things are irrelevant to the discussion of rankings.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
If MC is undefeated, and probably even if they have 1 loss, they'll be #1 in the region, regardless of what this board is hoping for. I could maybe see the point if someone in a better league had a comparable number of losses. But neither of those is true. The NCAC is down (rated 14th), Wittenberg is bad for the first time in the history of basketball, and Wesleyan and Wooster are struggling against the likes of Denison, Wabash, Kenyon, Hanover. Wesleyan has been a bad road team for two months (basically since beating Wooster on the road). L L L W L W, the last by a whopping 6 points over Hiram.
I think you've misunderstood, no one is really hoping for Marietta to not be ranked #1. A couple of us merely pointed out that while Marietta is unbeaten their criteria presented to the committee next week isn't that strong.
Record/win pct/OWP/OOWP
Marietta 20-0/1.000/
.473/.530
Case W 12-3/.800/.569/.513
OWU 16-4/.800/.563/.533
Their opponents win pct is really, really low and the difference of .090 between themselves and Case/OWU is enormous. Based on past experience with ranking dynamics I don't think its a slam dunk Marietta will be ranked #1, neither would I be surprised if they
are ranked #1.
If you want to argue that it should be a slam dank regardless of criteria then you have a point and no argument from me, but that's not how the ranking system works anymore and hasn't for a long time now.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
If MC is undefeated, and probably even if they have 1 loss, they'll be #1 in the region, regardless of what this board is hoping for. I could maybe see the point if someone in a better league had a comparable number of losses. But neither of those is true. The NCAC is down (rated 14th), Wittenberg is bad for the first time in the history of basketball, and Wesleyan and Wooster are struggling against the likes of Denison, Wabash, Kenyon, Hanover. Wesleyan has been a bad road team for two months (basically since beating Wooster on the road). L L L W L W, the last by a whopping 6 points over Hiram.
Being a bad road team is not a criteria.
Marietta had its own close calls to sub-par conference competition.
71-69 at Wilmington(9-10)
83-77 at Heidelberg(8-12)
Another recent example of a team being ranked low with a great record/poor SOS was Calvin in 2013.
16-1 with OWP of .435 was ranked #6 by the regional committee in the first rankings of that season. Super extreme example but an example.
Quote from: sac on February 06, 2015, 07:58:24 AM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
If MC is undefeated, and probably even if they have 1 loss, they'll be #1 in the region, regardless of what this board is hoping for. I could maybe see the point if someone in a better league had a comparable number of losses. But neither of those is true. The NCAC is down (rated 14th), Wittenberg is bad for the first time in the history of basketball, and Wesleyan and Wooster are struggling against the likes of Denison, Wabash, Kenyon, Hanover. Wesleyan has been a bad road team for two months (basically since beating Wooster on the road). L L L W L W, the last by a whopping 6 points over Hiram.
I think you've misunderstood, no one is really hoping for Marietta to not be ranked #1. A couple of us merely pointed out that while Marietta is unbeaten their criteria presented to the committee next week isn't that strong.
Record/win pct/OWP/OOWP
Marietta 20-0/1.000/.473/.530
Case W 12-3/.800/.569/.513
OWU 16-4/.800/.563/.533
Their opponents win pct is really, really low and the difference of .090 between themselves and Case/OWU is enormous. Based on past experience with ranking dynamics I don't think its a slam dunk Marietta will be ranked #1, neither would I be surprised if they are ranked #1.
If you want to argue that it should be a slam dank regardless of criteria then you have a point and no argument from me, but that's not how the ranking system works anymore and hasn't for a long time now.
Exactly. They certainly look like the
most likely team to be ranked #1 in the GL come next week. The point was simply that it's not as much of a no-brainer as the winning percentages make it look.
It's always hard to know how a committee will deal with a perfect record against a below average SOS (I have it as ~.488 after the Wilmington game). All I know is the discussion will be more than "well, they're undefeated so put them on top". The RAC will consider all the criteria, and that makes the race tighter than it might look on the surface.
I did initially fail to consider Marietta's win over Eastern Connecticut as being another quality RvRRO. They'll be something like 4-0 in that category which will look quite good (I was initially thinking more like 2-0). As it stands I think they will be #1. But we have a weekend of basketball in between then and now, and sometimes sports happen.
I think their RRO's will make the difference for Marietta. It will be interesting how they're treated vs PSU-Behrend who only have one RRO, a loss vs William Patterson.
Marietta should also get a decent bump in their OWP when they complete their road games with 15-5 Mt. Union and 14-5 John Carroll next week(after the first ranking). We may be looking at Marietta's OWP at its low point right now.
Case is going to have probably 6 RRO's (all from UAA) for the first ranking and probably finish with 8. Two wins for Case this weekend would make them 4-2 in RRO games, stronger OWP than Marietta......might be interesting.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
If MC is undefeated, and probably even if they have 1 loss, they'll be #1 in the region, regardless of what this board is hoping for. I could maybe see the point if someone in a better league had a comparable number of losses. But neither of those is true. The NCAC is down (rated 14th), Wittenberg is bad for the first time in the history of basketball, and Wesleyan and Wooster are struggling against the likes of Denison, Wabash, Kenyon, Hanover.
Another criterion that is not considered by the RAC when ranking is relative strength of a team's conference, especially as evaluated by Massey. And if they did, it would perhaps not bode well for the OAC, which put up a less-than-enviable 1-9 record against the "down" NCAC this season. It was not that long ago when the NCAC collectively would have jumped for joy to have a .500 record against the OAC; this year, only Capital's mid-November thrashing of stumbling Wittenberg saved the OAC from the schneid.
I grant you, apart from Wooster's narrow victory over Mt. Union, most of these games were the dregs vs. the dregs (Otterbein and Muskingum accounted for 5 of the 9 losses), so it is hazardous to infer anything about relative conference strength from these results, and it therefore should be a relief to consider that they will not work
against Marietta in the rankings.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
It's not Marietta's fault that no one would play them. Marietta beat Hanover handily, Wooster lost to them. Beat ECSU on a neutral court. Wesleyan lost to Denison, which Marietta has had no trouble beating even before John really got the program going.
I think last year the NCAC schools saw MC was getting too close to beating them and knew what was coming this year. I can't imagine it's a coincidence that it went from 2-4 NCAC schools on the Marietta schedule to 0 this year.
Whoa...really dangerous to play the comparative score game in basketball. Just way too many games for somebody to not mix in a bad game somewhere along the line. Marietta might well be better than Wooster (maybe we'll find out in a few weeks), but Hanover doesn't have anything to do with it.
And I think the idea that teams are ducking Marietta is pretty far fetched. This isn't football with a small sample size and next to zero tolerance for a single loss. It's probably a lot more coincidence than you realize that Marietta didn't get NCAC teams on their schedule this year. Last year the NCAC went from 16 league games to 18 league games which leaves two fewer opportunities to work a game against Marietta in. Factor in one early season tournament plus a holiday tournament and all of a sudden several of the NCAC's teams only have three open opportunities for some kind of December midweek contest with Marietta...and with a jillion other schools in and around Ohio to play, it's easy to see how Marietta missed the NCAC this year.
Hanover's not in the NCAC, mind you. Some of the NCAC has really improved, too (Wabash, Allegheny, Oberlin even). Witt and DPU are thudding though.
As for the conspiracy theory regarding NCAC not playing Marietta...it's not like they had standing series with them each and every year. Some years they played Kenyon, Denison or OWU, some years not. They didn't play an NCAC in 2007-08, and played just Denison in 2009-10. As always it takes two to schedule and you have to find common dates. Going a full-round robin in the NCAC has taken two non-conference games away, too.
If Marietta wants games, they are welcome to come to the Hoopsville Classic in Baltimore in November or the D3hoops.com Classic in Las Vegas between Christmas and New Year's. :) The Hoopsville Classic is by invite-only, but Marietta more than meets the criteria that Dave McHugh and the tournament organizers set for participants, so I don't see it being a problem.
Wow certainly livened *that* discussion up! Lot to catch up on...
Hey give them a call. Baltimore's not a long trip from Marietta, really -- closer than Calvin or Hope, I would think. I can't speak for John but from the Hoopville's perspective there's no harm in asking.
They might go back to the Miami tournament over Christmas, though. I have no inside info at all on this or really anything involving the program, but just with the Garcia connection it seems like something they might want to do, and it seemed like they got a pretty good group of fans that made the trip.
The NCAC adding games really just supports the idea that the NCAC schools consciously decided not to schedule Marietta. I think John has played them every year he's been the coach, and some years played both all of Wooster, Wesleyan and Wittenberg, I think. Or two of the three. Until this year. Doesn't seem likely that it was his choice, given that and considering it's not like he's gotten steamrolled by them.
I know Hanover's not in the NCAC, but it's a common opponent between MC and Wooster and a differentiator since they didn't both win . Denison actually went to Marietta but didn't play Marietta, but they certainly didn't look as good against St. Vincent as Marietta did.
Of course you're seeing MC's schedule at its low point because they haven't played at JCU or at Mount yet. Not sure how it took so long to figure that out. I thought you all were just talking about being ranked at the end of this week -- which even that isn't going to happen unless MC loses to Wilmington Saturday. I bet Case would vouch for Wilmington being a credible opponent despite their record.
As far as being a bad road team not being a criteria, I would certainly think that when there's one team that can't seem to win on the road even against mediocre teams vs. one team that doesn't lose anywhere against anyone, that who is better would be obvious.
So how do you separate Case and OWU? They're both 1-1 against common opponents. I think Case makes the better well, case, against Marietta but if they aren't judged to be better than OWU then they're not better than an undefeated Marietta.
I think even suggesting that an undefeated team wouldn't be the top ranked in this region shows a certain level of hope for that to end up being the case, because it's quite ridiculous and I'm glad some further reflection, research and discussion seems to have brought that out (like forgetting to figure in ECSU, which is pretty significant).
LOL someone dinged my karma for this exchange?
Gotta be kidding me, grow a pair whoever you are.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 01:00:38 PM
The NCAC adding games really just supports the idea that the NCAC schools consciously decided not to schedule Marietta.
Is this serious? Yes or no: You think the NCAC went from 16 to 18 league games because that was the easiest way to duck Marietta?
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2015, 02:54:14 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 01:00:38 PM
The NCAC adding games really just supports the idea that the NCAC schools consciously decided not to schedule Marietta.
Is this serious? Yes or no: You think the NCAC went from 16 to 18 league games because that was the easiest way to duck Marietta?
I would ask the same question about the way you took this: are you serious?
Obviously NCAC schools had to shuffle their non-conference scheduling from previous years. So they had to make some decisions. It was *them* making the decisions, to be clear. And apparently one of them was to not play Marietta. You can make whatever guesses you want as to why they did it, but they all made the same decision the same year.
Maybe I'm in the wrong place if people are going to get upset about someone criticizing flawed analyses (again, not counting ECSU = FAIL!) and then jump to completely terrible conclusions like this.
Y'all go on with your bad selves, think what you want. Sure, Marietta's gonna be the 3 seed with an undefeated record because decimals. Whatever. I'm out.
I'll bet a dollar that Marietta had zero influence on the NCAC's decision to play a full double round robin.
Danger, danger: TGHIJGSTO! warning ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2015, 03:42:52 PM
I'll bet a dollar that Marietta had zero influence on the NCAC's decision to play a full double round robin.
Marietta wasn't dominant when most schools signed their contracts for 2014-15 non-conference games. There's one outlier here season here. I am not sure schools would be running from a 17-9 team.
2013-14 (19-7, 14-4 OAC)
2012-13 (20-8, 14-4 OAC)
2011-12 (17-9, 12-6 OAC)
2010-11 (27-4, 15-3 OAC)
2009-10 (10-16, 6-12 OAC)
Quote from: realist on February 06, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Danger, danger: TGHIJGSTO! warning ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I was thinking the same thing.
I hear the NCAC is thinking of re-admitting Earlham and adding Defiance and Bluffton so they can play a 24-game conference schedule and all but eliminate the danger of having to face the Etta Express. :)
Seriously, EE, this isn't the baseball board, nobody here has an ax to grind against the Pioneers, and several of us are fans of Jon VanderWal from his Albion and OWU days and are happy to see him succeeding. And I think that nobody in here predicts, or particularly
wants to see Etta not be #1 in the region in the first ranking, or feels that the #1 ranking is undeserved. All anyone is pointing out is that the official criteria that the committee does and must follow doesn't favor the Pioneers
as strongly as their undefeated record would suggest.
And there are no listening devices in your cheese.
I'm catching up on last night's Hoopsville, Dave noted that RACs don't include RvRRO in the first rankings because they don't have the previous week's rankings (and I'm guessing it's not practical for the national committee to have to do a deep review across regions once they're all in). So we're left with WP, SOS, H2H, and common opponents for this first set.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2015, 04:49:23 PM
I'm catching up on last night's Hoopsville, Dave noted that RACs don't include RvRRO in the first rankings because they don't have the previous week's rankings (and I'm guessing it's not practical for the national committee to have to do a deep review across regions once they're all in). So we're left with WP, SOS, H2H, and common opponents for this first set.
In that case depending how the weekend goes I could see Case or OWU or even both ranked ahead of Marietta until the next poll when Marietta's OWP will rise, maybe even above .500 with road games at JCU/Mt. Union and the RvRRO's kick in.
David's got a good point, EE.
I highly doubt anyone is ducking the Pioneers.
In the last five seasons Marietta is 6- 6 against NCAC teams. They are 4-0 against Denison who appeared in their Marietta Shrine Classic this year but was not scheduled by Marietta who I assume did the scheduling for their own tournament. They are 2-1 against Witt and 0-2 against Wooster and OWU. Other than Denison, I see no need for anyone in the NCAC to "duck" them.
The NCAC should have been double-round for a long time. They finally got their act together and made it so. When Hiram and Wabash joined the league, the powers that be somewhere decided that Wabash and Earlham should just go single round against Allegheny and Hiram. This carried on for a while, stopped when Earlham dropped, I think started again when DPU came on, and then FINALLY they decided that it should be double round anyway, as it should have been long ago.
I think having a balanced conference schedule is much more important than playing or ducking Marietta. Plus, the fact that Denison WAS AT MARIETTA this year for a tourney lays your conspiracy theory to waste.
Also, they played no NCAC schools in VanderWal's first year.
Besides, I don't think at least half of the NCAC has played Marietta much, if at all, in hoops in the NCAC era. Some used to play quite a bit back when most of the NCAC was in the OAC. But I can't see Hiram or Oberlin or Allegheny or Wabash or DPU making that long trek to Marietta when there are plenty of other options close by that are natural rivals. That leaves OWU, Kenyon, Denison, Witt and Wooster. It then comes down to dates, contracts, and other such fun athletics directors and coaches have to do to get a full slate of games.
I know Wabash fans would love to play other Indiana teams and not be 'stuck' with playing Illinois Tech twice. But that's how it worked out...you don't always get the schedule you really want.
Oh my Lord you all make my head hurt.
Ok since apparently I've somehow at some point failed to convey this, let me clear. I NEVER said anything about the reason why the North Coast as a conference decided to change conference schedule formats having anything to do with Marietta. And if you think I did at some point say that, someone needs to come and hit you on the head with a tack hammer.
What I did say is that having two fewer non conference games has clearly precipitated a series of decisions not to schedule Marietta. Maybe they were coordinated, maybe they weren't, but it sure seems odd that it happened all at once. So you tell me why they all decided at once to stop playing MC at once then. We've seen in D-I where good upstart programs get frozen out in scheduling. Doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't happen in D-III.
So because Denison was in Marietta and didn't play the home team that they've lost to 4 straight teams means *Marietta* didn't want to play? Again, brain pain. Never mind MC played two more accomplished programs there. Guess they didn't anticipate Wooster and Wesleyan having trouble with Denison.
If MC wins to go 21-0 and isn't ranked #1, they should just scrap everything and start over. It does look like a pretty weak committee, though. Several on it that haven't had much success. They may not understand how hard it is to have that kind of record in a league like the OAC where pretty much everyone can put up points.
Whatever, I've got homework to do and frankly this conversation is not worth my time. You all are married to some number that doesn't really mean anything because you have no idea who, if anyone, is better than Marietta because no one's beaten them yet. If someone does, then maybe the numbers matter more.
......and scene!!!! Cut!!!! That's a wrap everybody.
Carnegie - Mellon 72 Washington 59
Chicago 79 Case Western 73
Please pass the tack hammer.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 08:03:22 PM
It does look like a pretty weak committee, though. Several on it that haven't had much success. They may not understand how hard it is to have that kind of record in a league like the OAC where pretty much everyone can put up points.
Committee doesn't work that way, and hasn't in more than a decade.
Last night's results, today and Sunday's games. Most meaningful games are Mt. St Joseph/Defiance (winner gets upperhand in HCAC) and Washington at Case Western Sunday.
Friday 1/30
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 1/31
Pitt-Greensburg (11-9) @ Medaille (14-5)
Thomas More (13-6) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (14-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-5)
Anderson (10-9) @ Transylvania (11-8)
Hope (12-6) @ Albion (9-8)
Denison (12-8) @ Wooster (16-4)
Sunday 2/1
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
Maybe Marietta didn't want to schedule them either? If you're making accusations bring some proof.
Scheduling is tough. You have short windows to fit in those games, and many teams like to have a tournament. Wooster has theirs. Witt went to Stevenson. Denison went to Chicago. OWU went to Calvin. Kenyon to Westminster A lot of those arrangements are made in advance. It was such a weird schedule year OWU STARTED the year with a conference game.
Also, in the events like Marietta hosted the host usually makes the scheduling decisions, unless it's a conference vs. conference classic (up here, the GNAC and PacWest do those a lot, travel to one school and play two games against the other conference).
Again, it's only half of the NCAC that are in the 'ducking Marietta' mix. Just because teams don't play each other every year doesn't mean someone is ducking the other. Wabash didn't play Hanover this year - are they DUCKING the Panthers? Schedules just didn't work out.
The NCAC was 46-24 in non-conference. The NCAC was 8-1 against the OAC if I counted right.
Mind you, they were 4-0 against Otterbein, and some of the NCAC scheduled some interesting teams, as it were.
I don't think Marietta or the NCAC "powers" were ducking anyone. Wooster played Mount Union and St Vincent while OWU went on the road to Calvin, Hope, and Trine. I think defiance and OWU also played each other. Everyone presumed Otterbein would be much better. the Cardinals are the biggest disappointment in the OAC. Let's hope all the top Ohio teams win in the NCAA tourney and meet in the later rounds to see who is the best.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 12:58:16 PM
Maybe Marietta didn't want to schedule them either? If you're making accusations bring some proof.
Try to follow. I'm not the one making the accusations about anyone re: Denison and who they did or didn't want to play. St. Vincent and Hanover are usually contenders in their league, Denison usually isn't. There were two teams there that beat Wooster and Marietta is better than both of them.
Again, it's only half of the NCAC that are in the 'ducking Marietta' mix. Just because teams don't play each other every year doesn't mean someone is ducking the other. Wabash didn't play Hanover this year - are they DUCKING the Panthers? Schedules just didn't work out.
And again to you, everyone in the NCAC decided at once not to play Marietta after MC had been scheduling 2-3 of them a year since Vanderwal started making the schedule.
Whatever. Going for blackjack today.
If there's anything I know from a decade plus of watching the NCAC, they don't co-ordinate ANYTHING. There's no insidious plot to not schedule Marietta.
You still haven't answered why Marietta didn't schedule any NCAC teams in his first season as coach, when they were awful? Could it be just normal variance of scheduling?
I looked as far as D3 hoops has, in the past few years from 15 back to 07: 0, 3, 3, 3, 1,1,3,0,0 :
In 2014 and 2013 they were in tourneys where they played an NCAC team - in 14 at Defiance and 13 at Wooster.
As a normal course, Marietta isn't a long-time for-sure-must-play game for NCAC in non-conference. They're someone to call when they have holes, and Denison locked them up for a few years it seems for schedule certainty. But that contract ran out, it seems, and Denison went to play at their tourney instead. Plus, why complain Dension is ducking Marietta? It's not like the Big Red helps a lot in SOS or RRs.
And there's travel - it's easier to get to Otterbein and Capital than Marietta. Sometimes that's a factor.
Why complain though, they played Eastern Connecticut...that's definitely better for them than Denison.
Dude, give up. You've completely lost the plot. Reread the thread and catch up.
I can't think of one thing you've got right.
How? By using facts and asking you to prove your spurious allegations? I just looked at schedules, my friend. And the schedules don't say if they did or did not DUCK Marietta. There was a run where three teams played Marietta, but not before that time and not after. And in two of those seasons, they played Marietta in a in-season tourney where it wasn't pre-ordained they play each other.
I guess if you play someone in a tournament, it doesn't count to you.
Again, give up. You're making a fool of yourself.
I didn't say that at all; I said that it wasn't an OUTRIGHT scheduled game and in tournaments, sometimes you miss teams...
Smed, it might be best to just ignore TGHIJGSTO, Jr. Since this is not a game played with bats and gloves, he doesn't know how to handle winning. ;)
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 04:04:56 PM
I didn't say that at all; I said that it wasn't an OUTRIGHT scheduled game and in tournaments, sometimes you miss teams...
And I'm saying that doesn't matter at all.
Marietta turning on the style against Wilmington. I bet there's at least one automatic vote on the committee for MC as #1.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Smed, it might be best to just ignore TGHIJGSTO, Jr. Since this is not a game played with bats and gloves, he doesn't know how to handle winning. ;)
I don't really appreciate that or think I did anything to deserve it. All I did was give an opinion and everyone has climbed on and dinged me from there. Am I supposed to just let them get away with poor analysis and ridiculous reasoning without giving anything back? I guess so, because they're from the mighty NCAC and apparently I should just shut up.
I would say some people here don't know how to handle being told they're wrong. Case already lost this week, so would love to hear the reasoning behind Marietta not being #1 now.
That's what this is all about, someone that apparently is a deity being told they're wrong.
Blackjack.
I hope you all are right and somehow the committee doesn't put Marietta #1, even though it would be a travesty. Nothing would motivate this team more going into the very tough road trips they have coming up. They seem to revel in adversity. After a terrible foul call and technical foul, Marietta went on like a 20-2 run sparked by the kid that started the year as the #5 post player.
Wilmington actually played pretty well and tried pretty much everything. Marietta's just a lot better than them.
Keep up with the -k s, eunuchs. Our passion makes us strong, your hate makes us stronger.
Bump...for no reason whatsoever.
Last night's results, today and Sunday's games. Most meaningful games are Mt. St Joseph/Defiance (winner gets upperhand in HCAC) and Washington at Case Western Sunday.
Friday 1/30
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 1/31
Pitt-Greensburg (11-9) @ Medaille (14-5)
Thomas More (13-6) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (14-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-5)
Anderson (10-9) @ Transylvania (11-8)
Hope (12-6) @ Albion (9-8)
Denison (12-8) @ Wooster (16-4)
Sunday 2/1
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
OAC apparently isn't in the region anymore. Now I get why Marietta won't be the top ranked.
Wooster struggling with Denison again. Down 2 at half...literally the only thing Denison does well is shoot 3's, and yet they lead.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 07:59:55 PM
OAC apparently isn't in the region anymore. Now I get why Marietta won't be the top ranked.
None of the OAC games were germane to the topic...
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 07:59:55 PM
OAC apparently isn't in the region anymore. Now I get why Marietta won't be the top ranked.
None of the OAC games were germane to the topic...
Then what is the point of sac's list? To talk about games other than OAC games?
OAC is in the Great Lakes Region. A list of games being played should include OAC teams. It's not like there aren't OAC teams that are as good or better than teams listed.
Stripes really helping Wooster right now but missed front end of 1 and 1. Pannell bumps on people all game but when a Denison guy does it to Lalonde they call offensive. ::)
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 07:59:55 PM
OAC apparently isn't in the region anymore. Now I get why Marietta won't be the top ranked.
Let me explain it to you. I've kept track of each teams in-region record to give myself and others an idea of how the teams in the region are stacking up against each other. I only include the teams that have a winning record or record that may give them a chance at a ranking.
Like so
QuoteUpdated thru Wed 2/4
Marietta 20-0
Penn State-Behrend 18-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 16-4
Wooster 16-4
Case Western Reserve 12-3
------------------------.800
Mount Union 15-5
John Carroll 14-5
Medaille 14-5
Mount St. Joseph 14-5
Hilbert 14-5
Defiance 14-5
Calvin 13-5
DePauw 14-6
------------------------.700
St. Vincent 13-6
Thomas More 13-6
Baldwin Wallace 13-6
Trine 13-6
Hope 12-6
Bethany 13-8
Denison 12-8
Thiel 9-6
------------------------.600
Transylvania 11-8
Pitt-Greensburg 11-9
Anderson 10-9
Rose-Hulman 10-9
Wabash 8-7
Albion 9-8
Carnegie Mellon 8-8
-----------------------------------.500
Pitt-Bradford 8-10
On Sunday afternoon I look ahead to the next weeks schedule and highlight the
head-to-head games of the teams on this list or in the case of our UAA members in our region key games they may play vs other potential regionally ranked teams. Like so.......
QuoteThis Week's Key Games --Winners in bold
Wednesday 2/4
Pitt-Bradford (8-9) @ Hilbert (13-5)
Thomas More (13-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
St. Vincent (13-5) @ Waynesburg (11-9)
Anderson (10-8) @ Defiance (13-5)
Mt. St. Joseph (14-4) @ Transylvania (10-8)
Hope (12-5) @ Calvin (12-5)
Friday 2/6
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 2/7
Pitt-Greensburg (11-9) @ Medaille (14-5)
Thomas More (13-6) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (14-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-5)
Anderson (10-9) @ Transylvania (11-8)
Hope (12-6) @ Albion (9-8)
Denison (12-8) @ Wooster (16-4)
Sunday 2/8
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
This past week there happen to be no games in the OAC between the 4 teams on the previous list so I didn't include any 'key' OAC matchups. Hope that helps.
OK so you're for some reason tracking a bunch of teams that have no chance to be ranked while only tracking 3 OAC teams. Got it.
3 = 4, of course :)
Denison defeats Wooster on the road, 76-72.
Wooster not exactly looking like top regional rank material.
Well, who amongst the OTHER OAC teams are over .500 and can be ranked. Sac's being as inclusive as possible.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 09:17:50 PM
Well, who amongst the OTHER OAC teams are over .500 and can be ranked. Sac's being as inclusive as possible.
Didn't know 8-10 was over .500. Must be that common core math.
Pitt-Bradford was.500. For this list he's excluding two games against Alfred State, a provisional that the NCAA will exclude.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 09:25:26 PM
Pitt-Bradford was.500. For this list he's excluding two games against Alfred State, a provisional that the NCAA will exclude.
Careful - introducing facts into this discussion can be lethal :)
TGHIJGSTO
I threw Pitt-Bradford in this week because they had just 9 losses and were 10-9 overall (counting the games smedindy mention even though they don't count for ranking), thought I'd keep it consistent at 9 for this week. It was a team I had missed. I realize they had little chance to be ranked but I also like to have as many 'key games' as possible while still just focusing on potential ranked teams.
Then Bradford lost on Wednesday to reach 10.
Sunday I'll be dropping the 9 loss teams.
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 09:25:26 PM
Pitt-Bradford was.500. For this list he's excluding two games against Alfred State, a provisional that the NCAA will exclude.
8-10 < .500
Fact.
If you mean to say they're 8-8 in games the NCAA will count, then put their record as 8-8. Not that it matters, half this list is completely pointless.
Then again, since this person is the one that tried to make the case that Marietta isn't the top team in the region, probably the entire thing is pointless.
Bet he's feeling pretty stupid after today.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:32:58 PM
I threw them in this week because they had just 9 losses, thought I'd keep it consistent at 9 for this week. It was a team I had missed. I realize they had little chance to be ranked but I also like to have as many 'key games' as possible while still just focusing on potential ranked teams.
Then Bradford lost on Wednesday to reach 10.
Sunday I'll be dropping the 9 loss teams.
Wait, you mean you're fallible? And this has nothing to do with indy's BS excuse about Alfred State or whatever?
As many key games as possible that don't involve OAC teams, you mean? Just like you *forgot* that Marietta played ECSU?
Seems like y'all's deity is pretty fallible. More like a Greek god or something.
I want to hear the one again about how Marietta's not the best team in the region. That was a good one.
Feels so good to be so timely.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 07, 2015, 09:25:26 PM
Pitt-Bradford was.500. For this list he's excluding two games against Alfred State, a provisional that the NCAA will exclude.
8-10 < .500
Fact.
If you mean to say they're 8-8 in games the NCAA will count, then put their record as 8-8. Not that it matters, half this list is completely pointless.
Then again, since this person is the one that tried to make the case that Marietta isn't the top team in the region, probably the entire thing is pointless.
Bet he's feeling pretty stupid after today.
Half of what you've posted is completely pointless, so we're even
C'mon sac, tell us all how Case and the NCAC schools are better than Marietta, again. That was funny.
womp womp
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:03:12 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 07:59:55 PM
OAC apparently isn't in the region anymore. Now I get why Marietta won't be the top ranked.
Let me explain it to you. I've kept track of each teams in-region record to give myself and others an idea of how the teams in the region are stacking up against each other. I only include the teams that have a winning record or record that may give them a chance at a ranking.
Like so
QuoteUpdated thru Wed 2/4
Marietta 20-0
Penn State-Behrend 18-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 16-4
Wooster 16-4
Case Western Reserve 12-3
------------------------.800
Mount Union 15-5
John Carroll 14-5
Medaille 14-5
Mount St. Joseph 14-5
Hilbert 14-5
Defiance 14-5
Calvin 13-5
DePauw 14-6
------------------------.700
St. Vincent 13-6
Thomas More 13-6
Baldwin Wallace 13-6
Trine 13-6
Hope 12-6
Bethany 13-8
Denison 12-8
Thiel 9-6
------------------------.600
Transylvania 11-8
Pitt-Greensburg 11-9
Anderson 10-9
Rose-Hulman 10-9
Wabash 8-7
Albion 9-8
Carnegie Mellon 8-8
-----------------------------------.500
Pitt-Bradford 8-10
On Sunday afternoon I look ahead to the next weeks schedule and highlight the head-to-head games of the teams on this list or in the case of our UAA members in our region key games they may play vs other potential regionally ranked teams. Like so.......
QuoteThis Week's Key Games --Winners in bold
Wednesday 2/4
Pitt-Bradford (8-9) @ Hilbert (13-5)
Thomas More (13-5) @ Bethany (10-8)
St. Vincent (13-5) @ Waynesburg (11-9)
Anderson (10-8) @ Defiance (13-5)
Mt. St. Joseph (14-4) @ Transylvania (10-8)
Hope (12-5) @ Calvin (12-5)
Friday 2/6
Washington @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Chicago @ Case Western (11-3)
Saturday 2/7
Pitt-Greensburg (11-9) @ Medaille (14-5)
Thomas More (13-6) @ Thiel (9-6)
Defiance (14-5) @ Mt. St. Joseph (14-5)
Anderson (10-9) @ Transylvania (11-8)
Hope (12-6) @ Albion (9-8)
Denison (12-8) @ Wooster (16-4)
Sunday 2/8
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
This past week there happen to be no games in the OAC between the 4 teams on the previous list so I didn't include any 'key' OAC matchups. Hope that helps.
Why wasn't ONU on this list? They were 10-10 before today.
I made that list last Sunday. ONU had 10 losses, Pitt-Bradford 9.
I updated the records on Wednesday but didn't drop anyone because I do that on Sunday.
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:46:54 PM
I made that list last Sunday. ONU had 10 losses, Pitt-Bradford 9.
I updated the records on Wednesday but didn't drop anyone because I do that on Sunday.
hum seems to have trouble reading and comprehending basic English
Then I just missed them, easy mistake to make
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 09:58:28 PM
These people dissed the program and need to be put in their place, especially since they've been caught red-handed now. Undefeated record and they're still questioning whether MC is the best in the region? Yeah because they don't want it to be true.
When did this ever happen? I saw people point out that win percentage is one of many criteria for ranking, selection, and seeding. I don't think anybody "dissed" Marietta. Let's go ahead and put that hater card back in the deck- not applicable here.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 10:11:02 PM
The discussion was going ok (even though everyone but me was wrong, but civilly so) until wally Wabash decided to be an idiot and accuse me of saying the NCAC changed its schedule so they could not play Marietta. That was at the end of page 107.
That's not an accusation. You said that.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 06, 2015, 01:00:38 PM
The NCAC adding games really just supports the idea that the NCAC schools consciously decided not to schedule Marietta.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 08:42:35 PM
Stripes really helping Wooster right now but missed front end of 1 and 1. Pannell bumps on people all game but when a Denison guy does it to Lalonde they call offensive. ::)
This was funny. That's just life in the NCAC. :)
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:46:54 PM
I made that list last Sunday. ONU had 10 losses, Pitt-Bradford 9.
I updated the records on Wednesday but didn't drop anyone because I do that on Sunday.
It's my fault, but I plead ignorance.
Your plea is accepted. Diminished capacity was also a possible defense.
Quote from: oldknight on February 07, 2015, 10:24:42 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:46:54 PM
I made that list last Sunday. ONU had 10 losses, Pitt-Bradford 9.
I updated the records on Wednesday but didn't drop anyone because I do that on Sunday.
It's my fault, but I plead ignorance.
Your plea is accepted. Diminished capacity was also a possible defense.
So a bunch of posts get deleted, but this blatant personal attack is allowed to remain?
Yeah I'm not being treated unfairly or anything...that's two cheap shots that have gone completely unchallenged.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: oldknight on February 07, 2015, 10:24:42 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2015, 09:46:54 PM
I made that list last Sunday. ONU had 10 losses, Pitt-Bradford 9.
I updated the records on Wednesday but didn't drop anyone because I do that on Sunday.
It's my fault, but I plead ignorance.
Your plea is accepted. Diminished capacity was also a possible defense.
So a bunch of posts get deleted, but this blatant personal attack is allowed to remain?
Yeah I'm not being treated unfairly or anything...that's two cheap shots that have gone completely unchallenged.
Why can't you ever stop posting? Enough, already. Marietta baseball hasn't even started and you're already putting yourself on thin ice for even making it to the season.
Read the post where I explain everything that's happened and make very clear that none of this is my doing.
I don't understand how in the world someone can put this back on me. I've been insulted, lied to, completely misrepresented, and I was the one that was right from the start!
And why do you allow people to personally attack me without provocation, not delete the offending material while deleting other stuff, and then blame me for it?
In a just world you'd be scolding the people making the unprovoked personal attacks, not me. In both cases the person hadn't been posting until they came out of the dressing room JUST to attack me.
You can ban me or you can not ban me and I don't care what you do, but I am *not* backing down. This is not on me.
And if you want a regional baseball preview without doing it yourself., you'll give me a little frickin' slack and try to see both sides here.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 08, 2015, 12:51:35 AM
Read the post where I explain everything that's happened and make very clear that none of this is my doing.
Except that you continue to post. I've been reading throughout, over multiple days. I'm not just catching up now.
I didn't delete any posts and I don't care who deleted other posts. And the fact that you are one of Jim Dixon's contributors does not buy you dozens of posts of slack, sir. Jim would support this.
Knock. It. Off.
So if I just went away everything would be great, eh? Well all right then.
You know, the crap of this for me is that I wouldn't mind applying at CWT but I hesitate to because I don't know if I could work with you if I had to.
This really isn't great conflict mitigation on your part to re-open old wounds, and to post something that clearly is not going to be well accepted, whilst making no attempt whatsoever to even pretend to address my position and point of view.
All someone ever did was raise the possibility, based on criteria and examination, that Marietta may not be the #1 ranked team in the region when the first rankings come out. I've seen regional rankings go against 'conventional wisdom' many times thanks to the application of the criteria. Sorry if this board isn't a Marietta-love fest, but a reasonable examination of the data and criteria.
It's never pretty when blatant homerism clouds a discussion like this, where we're doing our best to 'guess' what the criteria and rankings should be...
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 08, 2015, 01:10:10 AM
You know, the crap of this for me is that I wouldn't mind applying at CWT but I hesitate to because I don't know if I could work with you if I had to.
This really isn't great conflict mitigation on your part to re-open old wounds, and to post something that clearly is not going to be well accepted, whilst making no attempt whatsoever to even pretend to address my position and point of view.
Yeah. Over the line when you start talking about the day job. I wouldn't recommend you for a job that involved communications, for sure.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 07, 2015, 11:41:59 PM
So a bunch of posts get deleted, but this blatant personal attack is allowed to remain?
Yeah I'm not being treated unfairly or anything...that's two cheap shots that have gone completely unchallenged.
For the record it was me who deleted a couple of posts that were headed off topic. I certainly did not intent to treat anyone unfairly and no cheap shot was intended. To the extent that my intentions went awry, I apologize.
Now lets get back to a discussion on Great Lakes basketball.
You know you could delete that if you really felt like it was so far over the line.
It's the truth. I had a class with MCN this year and really liked her and what I learned in the class and about the CCs through her.
Ironically, you know I'm good at communications, yet you wouldn't recommend me for a job there? Not that I was necessarily targeting a job where your recommendation would be expected, really.
I guess it's just a bit unfortunate for me that we met here because of how it might close a door that I would like to be open. I guess it still could be, but I don't know it if it would be worth it.
Since I'm moderated now, you can make the choice whether to post this or not. I really don't care which you do, and it'll be my last post for some time. You say you want me to quit posting, so have it your way.
I mean, honestly, you're so combative here, who would want that in their workplace? Nobody wants it here in a place they go to voluntarily so why would they want it in a place we're forced to go?
I don't think I am what you claim me to be. I don't back down when I think I'm right and when someone hasn't adequately shown I'm not. I don't think that's a negative here, or in a workplace. I could point out that my refusal to back down here resulted in more information, and that it is practically inevitable that I'll be proven right. No one ever showed an example of an undefeated team being ranked lower with this many games played than 4-5 loss teams, and I can't really remember it in baseball either. So I don't think any reason has been shown that I should have capitulated.
I also almost always have good reason and backing for why my view is what it is. I don't just take a stance for the sake of it out of nowhere or without reason. Leaders need to be tough when there's reason to be so. That's not the only thing they need to be, by any stretch, but it's what is most relevant to this particular sequence of events.
I could say more and give more reasons why I think your view is askew, but I'm not convinced it would matter.
But no one forces you to go to work. I've been forced to go to work before, but that's because I signed a contract enforceable by time in a federal prison. I don't expect that will ever be the case again.
And with that, I don't think I have anything else to say. I've given the work I've done so far to Jim and informed him that I cannot complete it. I don't like doing this because I know the position I'm putting him in, but you've made clear that you don't want me here and you don't value what I contribute here, or what I could contribute elsewhere. So I'm giving you what you want -- less of me.
Bailing on an assignment is your choice, not mine.
Couple games today
Sunday 2/8
Chicago @ Carnegie-Mellon (8-7)
Washington @ Case Western (11-3)
Wow.......
After the loss to Chicago on Friday, today's game vs. Wash U is critical for Case Western. Case is currently a game behind Chicago and a loss today would put them in a in the middle of the pack behind Chicago and Emory and tied with WashU and several other teams.
What I don't understand in all this is that the bee in ettaexpress' bonnet seems to be that he is insulted or outraged that anyone would assert that Marietta is not the best team in the region and will not or should not be the regional #1 in the first ranking, and nobody has made that assertion. From very beginning, he's been trying to slay a dragon that does not exist, and getting angrier and less rational (and much more prolific) about it all along. Bizarre.
Sorry you had to get involved, Pat and Jim.
I agree David, during this whole discussion no one ever said that Marietta did not deserve the number one ranking, but that based on the criteria people could see why they may not be.
This was typical. His battles across other boards over the years are well known, to those of us who follow baseball. About baseball anyway, he is very knowledgeable. He knows alot about the teams and the game accross regions. The problem has always been his delivery.
It seems to me that he has a strong sense of justice and when he perceives that something close or dear to him is slighted, he lashes out. I have seen him target particular posters that have slighted him, unitl he gets satisfaction.
I miss his knowledge but not the disruptions. I understand how he can be a valuable contributor with his knowlege and insight, in baseball anyway. I just wish he could get along.
WashU 95, Case 75
I don't know any less about basketball than baseball. Just a little less familiar with history, but that's not really that relevant. I'm actually better at teaching and playing basketball than baseball.
No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.
I don't think a strong sense of justice is a bad thing at all. I'll wear that label all day long.
What Jim did made sense. What Pat did only escalated things. Very poor conflict management, so poor that I can only deduce that he didn't intend to mitigate it.
I wish a lot of things about other people.
Deleting this account now. Toodles.
By the time I came to the conversation, etta, you were beyond mitigation. When you're on a rampage, there's nothing I'm going to be able to do about it other than try to slow the conversation down with the moderation tools at my disposal.
As a moderator, I'm not obliged to mitigate things for people when they are acting like trolls. And when Jim tried to mitigate things, you lashed out, probably assuming I had done it. Can't win.
(## column is RPI rank in the region)
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 1.000 0.488 0.616 019 A 21-0 0-0 OAC Marietta
GL 02 0.810 0.540 0.607 024 A 17-4 0-0 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.762 0.537 0.593 033 C 16-5 0-0 NCAC Wooster
GL 04 0.706 0.546 0.586 040 C 12-5 0-0 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 06 0.700 0.541 0.581 048 A 14-6 0-0 PrAC St. Vincent
I feel pretty good about the above as the top five. 6-7-8-9, I really have no idea. Hope, Mount Union, John Carroll, Penn State-Behrend, Calvin, and Medaille are the top candidates.
Hope has the head-to-head over Mount Union, and Mount Union has the head-to-head over John Carroll, so that order looks solid. Whether Penn State-Behrend slots in ahead of that group or behind (or somewhere in the middle), I don't know. SOS makes it look like they need to stay behind Mount Union.
Calvin has the 2-0 head-to-head advantage over Hope, so maybe you bump them in ahead of that trio, but Trine has the (1-gm) head-to-head over Calvin, so how far can you jump them?
GL 05 0.684 0.551 0.585 044 C 13-6 0-0 MIAA Hope
GL 07 0.762 0.514 0.576 055 C 16-5 0-0 OAC Mount Union
GL 08 0.750 0.506 0.567 073 C 15-5 0-0 OAC John Carroll
GL 09 0.905 0.454 0.567 074 A 19-2 0-0 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 11 0.750 0.497 0.560 084 C 15-5 0-0 AMCC Medaille
gl 12 0.737 0.499 0.558 089 A 14-5 0-0 MIAA Calvin
At least two of the above six will be left out. I took Bethany out of the group because I don't think the committee would rank a .619 WP above some of these resumes (and one common opponent data point slots them behind Calvin, say). Of the below group, I think Trine is the one who could make a surprise appearance in the rankings, but I don't think that's particularly likely.
gl 10 0.619 0.541 0.561 083 C 13-8 0-0 PrAC Bethany
gl 13 0.700 0.505 0.553 096 C 14-6 0-0 OAC Baldwin Wallace
gl 14 0.700 0.489 0.542 118 C 14-6 0-0 HCAC Defiance
gl 15 0.556 0.537 0.542 120 C 10-8 0-0 UAA Carnegie Mellon
gl 16 0.700 0.485 0.539 125 C 14-6 0-0 MIAA Trine
gl 17 0.714 0.479 0.538 127 C 15-6 0-0 NCAC DePauw
gl 18 0.714 0.479 0.537 128 C 15-6 0-0 PrAC Thomas More
gl 19 0.750 0.463 0.535 133 A 15-5 0-0 HCAC Mount St. Joseph
Way too early for this, but we may be looking at only one Pool C bid from this region, unless there are lots of upsets and some of those top teams don't grab the Pool A bids.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 08, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.
I'm sure you're lingering so I'll lay it out for you. On the d3hoopsville radio interview with the National Tournament chair a little over a week ago a question was asked about how you differentiate between teams with different records and different OWP numbers. Part of that answer was something like a .030 difference in OWP is probably worth 2 wins, but a difference of .060 might not be worth 4. So I simply remembered that answer and applying that knowledge to Marietta (unbeatean but OWP of .475) vs OWU and Case (3 or 4 more losses but OWP's of .564). That's a difference of .090 OWP, so is that 6 wins, 5 wins, 4 wins?
Using that question its easy to see how someone who's followed these rankings for awhile and has at least a little knowledge of how they work might look at Marietta's numbers and think a number one ranking might not be a slam dunk. It was merely a statement of wondering out loud if Marietta would really be ranked #1.
Your reaction was frankly bizarre and over the top and it doesn't seem at any point did you even attempt to look at the criteria for regional rankings.
As far as you needing to be shown an unbeaten team not being ranked #1? Well that's impossible to do because I don't think we've had a D3 make it unbeaten to the first regional ranking with such a poor OWP since we started doing it this way 8 years ago. It simply hasn't happened so there is no precedent to refer to.
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 08, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.
We have at least seen something similar to this on the Women's side. Here are three sets from the same week in 2011.
Atlantic
1. Kean 16-1 19-3
2. Mount Saint Mary (New York) 18-2 18-2
3. William Paterson 17-3 18-3
4. Gallaudet 17-0 19-05. Richard Stockton 14-6 15-7
6. Baruch 16-3 17-3
Great Lakes
1. Thomas More 20-0 21-0
2. Hope 17-1 20-1
3. Calvin 14-1 18-4
4. Denison 19-0 21-05. Hanover 18-1 19-1
6. DePauw 14-1 18-3
Northeast
1. Amherst 21-1 21-1
2. Bowdoin 18-3 18-4
3. Babson 19-0 21-04. Colby 15-4 17-4
5. Williams 17-3 19-3
6. Western Connecticut 15-2 17-3
7. Bates 15-5 17-6
8. Southern Maine 14-5 14-7
9. Eastern Connecticut 15-4 15-6
10. Tufts 14-5 15-5
Pitt-Bradford and Pitt-Greensburg drop out with their 10th D3 losses. You can really see the logjam of teams with 5 and 6 losses.
Updated thru Wed 2/4
Marietta 21-0
Penn State-Behrend 19-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
------------------------.800
Wooster 16-5
Mount Union 16-5
John Carroll 15-5
Medaille 15-5
Mount St. Joseph 15-5
Hilbert 15-5
Calvin 14-5
Case Western Reserve 12-5
St. Vincent 14-6
Thomas More 14-6
Baldwin Wallace 14-6
Trine 14-6
Defiance 14-6
------------------------.700
Hope 13-6
DePauw 14-7
Bethany 14-8
Denison 13-8
------------------------.600
Wabash 10-7
Thiel 9-7
Anderson 11-9
Rose-Hulman 11-9
Transylvania 11-9
Carnegie Mellon 10-8
Albion 9-9
-----------------------------------.500
Next Week's Key Games:
Wednesday 2/11
John Carroll (15-5) @ Baldwin-Wallace (14-6)
Marietta (21-0) @ Mt. Union (16-5)
Wabash (10-7) @ Ohio Wesleyan (17-4)
Medaille (15-5) @ PSU-Behrend (19-2)
Friday 2/13
Case Western (12-5) @ New York U
Saturday 2/14
Marietta (21-0) @ John Carroll (15-5)
Denison (13-8) @ Wabash (10-7)
Trine (14-6) @ Calvin (14-5)
Transylvania (11-9) @ Defiance (14-6)
Sunday 2/15
Carnegie-Mellon (10-8) @ New York U.
Wednesday is a very big night for some teams in the Pool C fight particularly in the OAC. Overall a big week for John Carroll.
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2015, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: ettaexpress on February 08, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.
I'm sure you're lingering so I'll lay it out for you. On the d3hoopsville radio interview with the National Tournament chair a little over a week ago a question was asked about how you differentiate between teams with different records and different OWP numbers. Part of that answer was something like a .030 difference in OWP is probably worth 2 wins, but a difference of .060 might not be worth 4. So I simply remembered that answer and applying that knowledge to Marietta (unbeatean but OWP of .475) vs OWU and Case (3 or 4 more losses but OWP's of .564). That's a difference of .090 OWP, so is that 6 wins, 5 wins, 4 wins?
Using that question its easy to see how someone who's followed these rankings for awhile and has at least a little knowledge of how they work might look at Marietta's numbers and think a number one ranking might not be a slam dunk. It was merely a statement of wondering out loud if Marietta would really be ranked #1.
Your reaction was frankly bizarre and over the top and it doesn't seem at any point did you even attempt to look at the criteria for regional rankings.
As far as you needing to be shown an unbeaten team not being ranked #1? Well that's impossible to do because I don't think we've had a D3 make it unbeaten to the first regional ranking with such a poor OWP since we started doing it this way 8 years ago. It simply hasn't happened so there is no precedent to refer to.
Etta also seems to be just ignoring the criteria. What his opinion is (and perhaps that of many others, since it entirely reasonable), is that Marietta is the best team in the region. What the official rankings say must be done via the rankings. He is wrong when he says that the criteria is not a case, unless he is referencing his (and others') opinion. If he is referencing the official rankings, then he is just wrong, the criteria are the case. And perhaps the committee will agree with his opinion, when they apply those criteria. Or as has been posted, perhaps not.
Facts do get in the way of closely held beliefs at times...
Just like when someone asserted a D3 head football coach made 350 large....
For Pool C in this region it really comes down to 3 things that affect positioning in the final poll.....remembering all Pool C's will pick up a loss in conference tournaments
1. What JCU and Mt. Union do this week and next. JCU has 2 big games this week and both play Marietta. They play each other the next week, winner likely getting the upper hand on the other. Either team can strengthen their Pool C position significantly with a win over Marietta or fall further behind other worthy teams.
2. What Medaille does against PSU-Behrend on Wednesday. Six loss Medaille is in the pool c discussion with a chance, seven loss Medaille probably not.
3. How they position the MIAA trio of Hope, Calvin, Trine, if at all. Hope has a big OWP advantage over both but are just 1-3 head-to-head. Trine beat Calvin. All 3 have played likely region #2 OWU, Hope and Trine won, Calvin lost. How they position them this week could be different next week after Trine plays at Calvin Saturday.
Lastly I'll add what the committee does with PSU-Behrend could be really big if they lose in their tournament. Great record but a .432 OWP would be really low and could block a couple teams on the final day.
Does the committee favor win% or OWP, to what degree will be very key. In any case Marietta's probably the only Pool C lock at the moment with OWU in really good position should they lose in their tournaments. Everyone else is really on a bubble of some kind for Pool C.
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2015, 04:11:50 PM
Pitt-Bradford and Pitt-Greensburg drop out with their 10th D3 losses. You can really see the logjam of teams with 5 and 6 losses.
Updated thru Wed 2/4
Marietta 21-0
Penn State-Behrend 19-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 17-4
------------------------.800
Wooster 16-5
Mount Union 16-5
John Carroll 15-5
Medaille 15-5
Mount St. Joseph 15-5
Hilbert 15-5
Calvin 14-5
Case Western Reserve 12-5
St. Vincent 14-6
Thomas More 14-6
Baldwin Wallace 14-6
Trine 14-6
Defiance 14-6
------------------------.700
Hope 13-6
DePauw 14-7
Bethany 14-8
Denison 13-8
------------------------.600
Wabash 10-7
Thiel 9-7
Anderson 11-9
Rose-Hulman 11-9
Transylvania 11-9
Carnegie Mellon 10-8
Albion 9-9
-----------------------------------.500
sac: Can you remind me what the
bold indicates? I used to know, and I'd rather not have to sort through the recent mess of this board looking for the answer.
Thanks!
Bold is teams with SOS greater than .500
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2015, 04:37:43 PM
For Pool C in this region it really comes down to 3 things that affect positioning in the final poll.....remembering all Pool C's will pick up a loss in conference tournaments
Usually not something we have to really consider in the Great Lakes but remember that Case doesn't *have* to pick up another loss to be in Pool C.
Sheesh... I walk away for a couple of days.. where's the popcorn?
Couple of things... first regional rankings are nice to look at but ultimately they mean nothing. We get a sense of what the committees might be thinking and accessing, but we won't get a better sense until Week 2 when we see trends. And of course with once-ranked, always-ranked out the window... Week 1 is informative at best.
Secondly, vRRO will not be a factor in the first week. Impossible to have that data when there are no rankings in the first place.
Thirdly, Marietta is probably the best team in the region... they are not necessarily the best criteria team. While we haven't seen a precedent, Cabrini in the past has been close to being in Marietta's shoes and we all saw how Cabrini slide behind Scranton (2 losses) when they suffered their first loss of the season last year. They eventually got back to number one which goes back to my first point... the first rankings are informative... it's those last rankings that matter and I can't wait to see... oh never mind.
Fourthly, I am not sure Marietta won't be ranked #1... but I have looked at those criteria pretty in-depth and an argument could be had to slot them behind Ohio Wesleyan based on the .030 SOS to two games comparison. We are going to see that a few times I think in Week 1 (Dickinson and JHU and others).
Finally, Marietta has been invited to next year's Hoopsville Classic... we await word on whether they can make it work with their schedule.
Regarding undefeated Marietta, maybe not a perfect example, but one that came to mind for me - St. Norbert last year in the Midwest.
2014, Midwest regional ranking #3 (Feb 26)
1 Washington U. 22-2 22-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 22-3 22-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 17-8 17-8
4 Augustana 19-6 19-6
5 St. Norbert 21-1 22-1
6 Carthage 15-8 16-9
7 Rose-Hulman 20-5 20-5
8 Chicago 14-9 15-9
http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB®ion=35&division=3
(St. Norbert's loss was to UW-Whitewater, the #2-ranked team from the West region.)
Quote from: Titan Q on February 09, 2015, 06:39:53 AM
Regarding undefeated Marietta, maybe not a perfect example, but one that came to mind for me - St. Norbert last year in the Midwest.
2014, Midwest regional ranking #3 (Feb 26)
1 Washington U. 22-2 22-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 22-3 22-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 17-8 17-8
4 Augustana 19-6 19-6
5 St. Norbert 21-1 22-1
6 Carthage 15-8 16-9
7 Rose-Hulman 20-5 20-5
8 Chicago 14-9 15-9
http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB®ion=35&division=3
(St. Norbert's loss was to UW-Whitewater, the #2-ranked team from the West region.)
Interesting that St. Norbert had an OWP of .509 and could only get a #5 ranking with that one loss to Whitewater. At the moment Marietta is below .500, next week I think they'll creep above .500
Ohio Wesleyan looks to have similar criteria to that #4 Augustana team. 17-4 with OWP of .545, Augie was 19-6 OWP .553
GREAT LAKES
1 Marietta 21-0 21-0
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-4
3 Wooster 16-5 16-5
4 Case 12-5 14-6
5 Hope 13-6 14-7
6 Saint Vincent 14-6 15-6
7 Mount Union 16-5 16-5
8 John Carroll 15-5 15-5
9 Penn State-Behrend 19-2 19-2
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2015, 02:24:12 PM
GREAT LAKES
1 Marietta 21-0 21-0
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-4
3 Wooster 16-5 16-5
4 Case 12-5 14-6
5 Hope 13-6 14-7
6 Saint Vincent 14-6 15-6
7 Mount Union 16-5 16-5
8 John Carroll 15-5 15-5
9 Penn State-Behrend 19-2 19-2
Quick take......Hope's #5 ranking continues to suggest OWP and OOWP weigh heavily. The difference between OWU and Marietta simply wasn't enough to justify OWU ranked higher.
Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/)
sac - you keep referencing OWP and OOWP... remember, the SOS is what is factored... the OWP and the OOWP are not considered separately at all. I keep getting the sense you think they are separate numbers.
And the committee seems to be saying... strong SOS numbers are nice, but you have to prove you can win as well - not going to reward let's call it "false" SOS numbers.
Second take
Not sure I understand Calvin being out of the poll behind PSU-Behrend. 16-5 .516 OWP and 2-0 against a team they slotted #5 and I can't imagine their other criteria is any less than what PSU-Behrend has. Behrend is 19-2 with a .445 SOS.
That's a significant gap, at least worth 3 wins I think. Maybe Hope's #5 isn't because of OWP and more because of head-to-head results against OWU, Wooster and Mt. U. (2-1)
In that case OWP isn't being used in the same dramatic way as years past. A little confusing.
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
Second take
Not sure I understand Calvin being out of the poll behind PSU-Behrend. 16-5 .516 OWP and I can't imagine their other criteria is any less than what PSU-Behrend has. Behrend is 19-2 with a .445 SOS.
That's a significant gap, at least worth 3 wins I think. Maybe Hope's #5 isn't because of OWP and more because of head-to-head results against OWU, Wooster and Mt. U. (2-1)
In that case OWP isn't being used in the same dramatic way as years past. A little confusing.
Calvin also has the 2-0 H2H with Hope and common opponent (Hope) advantage over Mount Union. Not sure how you say John Carroll is above Penn State-Behrend but Calvin isn't.
10-15 are probably Calvin, Trine, Baldwin-Wallace, Defiance, DePauw, Medaille in some order.
Updated the blog to use the SOS method the NCAA told us they weren't using but they really are using.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
Second take
Not sure I understand Calvin being out of the poll behind PSU-Behrend. 16-5 .516 OWP and I can't imagine their other criteria is any less than what PSU-Behrend has. Behrend is 19-2 with a .445 SOS.
That's a significant gap, at least worth 3 wins I think. Maybe Hope's #5 isn't because of OWP and more because of head-to-head results against OWU, Wooster and Mt. U. (2-1)
In that case OWP isn't being used in the same dramatic way as years past. A little confusing.
Calvin also has the 2-0 H2H with Hope and common opponent (Hope) advantage over Mount Union. Not sure how you say John Carroll is above Penn State-Behrend but Calvin isn't.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next two updates as results versus regionally ranked opponents gets included in the mix. Could really ding Hope and doesn't really look to do any benefit for St. Vincent, Mt. Union or John Carroll either.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Updated the blog to use the SOS method the NCAA told us they weren't using but they really are using.
Is this the tweak that makes home games more difficult than road games? Last year I remember you throwing out what you called a "correct OWP" for Hope and it was lower than what the NCAA used.
This new tweak makes Hope's OWP higher. Moved them up 7 places on your RPI chart.
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2015, 02:56:02 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
Second take
Not sure I understand Calvin being out of the poll behind PSU-Behrend. 16-5 .516 OWP and I can't imagine their other criteria is any less than what PSU-Behrend has. Behrend is 19-2 with a .445 SOS.
That's a significant gap, at least worth 3 wins I think. Maybe Hope's #5 isn't because of OWP and more because of head-to-head results against OWU, Wooster and Mt. U. (2-1)
In that case OWP isn't being used in the same dramatic way as years past. A little confusing.
Calvin also has the 2-0 H2H with Hope and common opponent (Hope) advantage over Mount Union. Not sure how you say John Carroll is above Penn State-Behrend but Calvin isn't.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next two updates as results versus regionally ranked opponents gets included in the mix. Could really ding Hope and doesn't really look to do any benefit for St. Vincent, Mt. Union or John Carroll either.
Hope would be 2-3 in RvRRO as it stands (OWU, Wooster, Mt. U, Whitewater, StevensPoint)
With Calvin ranked 2-5
With Trine ranked 3-4
With both Calvin and Trine ranked 3-6
I don't think St.Vincent, JCU or MTU can do better. Maybe if JCU or MTU can beat Marietta.
All well in good after the rankings come out... and that will be their numbers next week.
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Updated the blog to use the SOS method the NCAA told us they weren't using but they really are using.
Is this the tweak that makes home games more difficult than road games? Last year I remember you throwing out what you called a "correct OWP" for Hope and it was lower than what the NCAA used.
This new tweak makes Hope's OWP higher. Moved them up 7 places on your RPI chart.
It's the tweak that makes road games weigh more heavily than home games. Not more heavily as in difficulty, but that the SOS components of the home games get shrunk and the away games get amplified.
We have had the 1.25 to 0.75 multiplier in place for several years (even going through a tweek of those numbers). It is an effort for teams that always want to play at home to stop being rewarded for playing tough schedules in their friendly confines every single year.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:18:34 PM
We have had the 1.25 to 0.75 multiplier in place for several years (even going through a tweek of those numbers). It is an effort for teams that always want to play at home to stop being rewarded for playing tough schedules in their friendly confines every single year.
I seem to be aware of the multiplier Dave, I'm not sure you're really following what KS and I are discussing. :)
RvRRO's --I did both inside and outside the Great Lakes Region for simplicity.
1. Marietta 4-0 (St. Vincent, JCU, Mt. U, Eastern Conn)
2. OWU 2-2 ( Hope, Wooster, Wooster)
3. Wooster 3-2 (St.Vincent, Mt. Union, Hope, OWU, OWU)
4. Case Western 2-2 (NYU, Emory, WashU, WashU)
5. Hope 2-3 (Whitewater, Stevens Point, Mt. Union, OWU, Wooster)
6. St. Vincent 1-2 (Marietta, Wooster, Mt. Union
7. Mt. Union 1-4 (St. Vincent, Wooster, Hope, Marietta, John Carroll)
8. John Carroll 1-2 (Marietta, St. Norbert, Mt. Union)
9. PSU-Behrend 2-0 (William Patterson, Misericordia)
Heard it twice "from the inside" now.
"Hope's sos really helped them."
Hard to ignore a .565 right now... however, other criteria for everyone and changing SOS numbers in the future could change that situation. Also, I have heard it often as well: false SOS numbers are not going to be rewarded. In other words, nice SOS but if you can't win with it you aren't going to be rewarded (i.e. Carthage last year). Hope can't lose too many more games are they are going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Hard to ignore a .565 right now... however, other criteria for everyone and changing SOS numbers in the future could change that situation. Also, I have heard it often as well: false SOS numbers are not going to be rewarded. In other words, nice SOS but if you can't win with it you aren't going to be rewarded (i.e. Carthage last year). Hope can't lose too many more games are they are going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
This is why I mentioned the inclusion of results vs. regionally ranked opponents in the coming weeks. Not sure the committee will be as willing to reward a team whose foundation is built on SOS if they see a 2-5 in that column.
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2015, 05:36:24 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Hard to ignore a .565 right now... however, other criteria for everyone and changing SOS numbers in the future could change that situation. Also, I have heard it often as well: false SOS numbers are not going to be rewarded. In other words, nice SOS but if you can't win with it you aren't going to be rewarded (i.e. Carthage last year). Hope can't lose too many more games are they are going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
This is why I mentioned the inclusion of results vs. regionally ranked opponents in the coming weeks. Not sure the committee will be as willing to reward a team whose foundation is built on SOS if they see a 2-5 in that column.
Walk it through though........
St. Vincent is 2-2, they won't pick up anymore RvRROs unless Trine is ranked, that would make them 2-3, they have a much worse loss to Wooster than Hope and a loss to Mt. Union who Hope beat
Mt. Union is 1-4, they will pick up Marietta and probably John Carroll next unless they win both of those their RvRRO's isn't likely to look better. SOS still weaker than Hope and have a head-to-head loss to Hope
John Carroll is 1-2, they will pick Marietta and probably Mt. Union, win both and they're 3-2 but still have pretty big SOS gap with Hope
PSU-Behrend is 2-0 they will not add anymore RvRRO games and may lose Misericordia who is #7 in the 7-team ranked Atlantic.
Calvin is 2-2 right now plus whatever Saturday's result with Trine is if the other is ranked next week
Trine is 4-3 right now plus whatvever Saturday's result with Calvin is if the other is ranked next week
being a head-to-head game the loser is unlikely to be ranked meaning Hope's RvRRO will probably be 2-5 if Calvin is ranked, or 3-4 if Trine is ranked
Calvin and Trine both have SOS gaps against Hope that will be difficult to breach. Based solely on the introduction of RvRRO's who do you move ahead of Hope that isn't already?
These are the only two I see you could move ahead of Hope (Calvin can close the SOS gap + 2-0 head-to-head) (Trine's SOS is still very poor compared to Hope, even head-to-head)
But here's the rub. The only way Hope makes it as a C is to make the MIAA Final which means one of these two is eliminated and being that the definition of Pool C is to lose your last game would mean the other gets the AQ. So these two really don't matter relative to Hope's Pool C chances.
Hope is in a very good position guys, if they keep winning they won't drop unless JCU or Mt Union beat Marietta.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Hard to ignore a .565 right now... however, other criteria for everyone and changing SOS numbers in the future could change that situation. Also, I have heard it often as well: false SOS numbers are not going to be rewarded. In other words, nice SOS but if you can't win with it you aren't going to be rewarded (i.e. Carthage last year). Hope can't lose too many more games are they are going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
I'm well aware of where Hope stands and how slim of a margin they have.
Mount Union 102 Marietta 92
I don't think it changes much. Mounts win over Marietta, same as Hope over OWU. Hope still owns head-to-head over Mount. I'd slide Mount ahead of St. Vincent maybe, but St. V has head-to-head over Mt. U. Mt. U got a nice SOS boost tonight but not enough to close gap with Hope.
John Carroll 108 Baldwin-Wallace 106 OT
probably ends BW's chances at ranking. JCU hosts Marietta Saturday.
Ohio Wesleyan 81 Wabash 80
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
Mount Union 102 Marietta 92
I don't think it changes much. Mounts win over Marietta, same as Hope over OWU. Hope still owns head-to-head over Mount. I'd slide Mount ahead of St. Vincent maybe, but St. V has head-to-head over Mt. U. Mt. U got a nice SOS boost tonight but not enough to close gap with Hope.
John Carroll 108 Baldwin-Wallace 106 OT
probably ends BW's chances at ranking. JCU hosts Marietta Saturday.
Ohio Wesleyan 81 Wabash 80
oh Sac it potentially changes the landscape particularly of MC loses to JCU Saturday which I think would mean MC would have to win the AQ or will be on the bubble?
Marietta with 3 losses would be interesting. Their SOS will go above .500 this weekend, that's what would have held them back in Pool C.
I don't think it changes the rankings if we did them tomorrow. That's all I meant.
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2015, 05:36:24 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Hard to ignore a .565 right now... however, other criteria for everyone and changing SOS numbers in the future could change that situation. Also, I have heard it often as well: false SOS numbers are not going to be rewarded. In other words, nice SOS but if you can't win with it you aren't going to be rewarded (i.e. Carthage last year). Hope can't lose too many more games are they are going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
This is why I mentioned the inclusion of results vs. regionally ranked opponents in the coming weeks. Not sure the committee will be as willing to reward a team whose foundation is built on SOS if they see a 2-5 in that column.
Yes... that is why the term "
results versus regionally ranked opponents" is so important to understand. It isn't a WL% thing (despite what one coach tried to argue on my show last season)... they do want to look at the results. Furthermore, if those five losses are to the top of regional rankings and the two wins are at the bottom - that is significant as well.
They really do look at all of the criteria.
Here's what we're looking at through Wednesday, separated by rough RPI tiers. After Calvin there's another gap before Carnegie Mellon.
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.955 0.504 0.617 013 A 21-1 4-1 OAC Marietta
GL 02 0.773 0.554 0.609 020 C 17-5 3-2 NCAC Wooster
GL 03 0.706 0.572 0.605 022 C 12-5 2-2 UAA Case Western Reserve
GL 04 0.818 0.532 0.604 023 A 18-4 2-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 05 0.700 0.557 0.593 034 C 14-6 2-3 MIAA Hope
GL 06 0.773 0.526 0.588 042 C 17-5 2-4 OAC Mount Union
GL 07 0.762 0.509 0.572 061 C 16-5 1-2 OAC John Carroll
GL 08 0.714 0.521 0.569 073 A 15-6 2-2 PrAC St. Vincent
GL 09 0.909 0.453 0.567 077 A 20-2 1-1 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
gl 10 0.750 0.506 0.567 078 A 15-5 2-1 MIAA Calvin
Calvin will probably jump into the rankings if they can beat Trine on Saturday. Anywhere from 9th all the way up to 5th is possible.
NYU 94 Case Western 73
That drops Case's win% below .700, very strong SOS, 2-3 RvRRo, some opportunity for teams behind them to move up this weekend.
John Carroll 86 Marietta 71
First thought is this really complicates things a bit. Mt. Union plays at John Carroll next Wednesday.
Hope loses 91-84 at alma. Pool c chances probably done.
I'll update final numbers after tomorrow's games, but looking like:
1. Marietta, even with the two losses this week.
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve
5. Mount Union
6. John Carroll
7. Calvin
8. Hope
9. St. Vincent
Still tricky 5-8. I could see those teams slotting in almost any order. Question is does Calvin's 2-0 over Hope bring them up above Mount Union, or does it bring Hope down below Calvin?
All I know is St. Vincent is behind Calvin. Could make an argument for .914 Penn State-Behrend being in the mix as well.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2015, 10:19:39 PM
I'll update final numbers after tomorrow's games, but looking like:
1. Marietta, even with the two losses this week.
2. Ohio Wesleyan
3. Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve
5. Mount Union
6. John Carroll
7. Calvin
8. Hope
9. St. Vincent
Still tricky 5-8. I could see those teams slotting in almost any order. Question is does Calvin's 2-0 over Hope bring them up above Mount Union, or does it bring Hope down below Calvin?
All I know is St. Vincent is behind Calvin. Could make an argument for .914 Penn State-Behrend being in the mix as well.
I disagree... Marietta now has three losses, just one less than OWU, who has a better SOS. Marietta is going to slip out of first.
FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
Marietta has two losses, both this week.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2015, 11:41:51 PM
FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
Dave, I wonder if the regional rankings will now come out on Wednesday. The server upgrade at the NCAA headquarters was completed much sooner than they planned. The upgrade was done by 3 p.m. yesterday. They originally thought it could be until Tuesday morning when everything was back up and running.
Correct - I was working on a fuzzy brain last night.
I have looked at the numbers again, and Marietta has a .513 SOS through yesterday's games (as best as we, KnightSlappy, can do the math based on NCAA information). That isn't as bad as feared. OWU has a .528 and Wooster has a .548. Marietta has a 4-2 vRRO while OWU has a 2-1 and Wooster has a 3-2. Just looking at those numbers and understanding the WL%, you could make an argument that Wooster is #1 with Marietta #2 and OWU #3. HOWEVER, the 2-0 head-to-head OWU has on Wooster leads to OWU being ahead of Wooster especially with one less loss for OWU. However, I think Marietta's numbers are worthy to keep ahead of OWU based on less losses, better vRRO, to outweigh a slight SOS disadvantage.
So I will agree with KnightSlappy's previous statements of Marietta - Ohio Wesleyan - Wooster... and who knows the rest.
One thing to keep in mind: the committees look at the rankings fresh each week. They don't base their decisions on last week and decide to move up or down from previous rankings. They start over. That actually might help Marietta also because their SOS is at least average.
Quote from: OC_SID on February 15, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2015, 11:41:51 PM
FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
Dave, I wonder if the regional rankings will now come out on Wednesday. The server upgrade at the NCAA headquarters was completed much sooner than they planned. The upgrade was done by 3 p.m. yesterday. They originally thought it could be until Tuesday morning when everything was back up and running.
I doubt it... mainly because of the following reasons:
- The servers might be back up, but the data might not be updated in time for today - more like dealing with that tomorrow.
- Any glitches will cause delays. I think there was confidence they could get up and running today, but expected the rest of today and tomorrow to get data into those servers that has been waiting for several days. And that might cause glitches.
- They have already put the plan in motion to have the rankings delayed for Thursday including conference calls and the like. I am not sure how easy it is to roll those back at this point.
That all being said, I will check to see if things have changed again.
Case Western's game with Brandeis was postponed this afternoon. Rescheduled for Monday.
Quote from: OC_SID on February 15, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2015, 11:41:51 PM
FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
Dave, I wonder if the regional rankings will now come out on Wednesday. The server upgrade at the NCAA headquarters was completed much sooner than they planned. The upgrade was done by 3 p.m. yesterday. They originally thought it could be until Tuesday morning when everything was back up and running.
under promise, over deliver
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2015, 02:00:59 PM
Case Western's game with Brandeis was postponed this afternoon. Rescheduled for Monday.
Not a big deal for Brandeis... they probably can't get back to Boston anyway! Though, getting anyone to Down East Maine would be far more difficult even if they did have an airport like Logan.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2015, 02:02:35 PM
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2015, 02:00:59 PM
Case Western's game with Brandeis was postponed this afternoon. Rescheduled for Monday.
Not a big deal for Brandeis... they probably can't get back to Boston anyway! Though, getting anyone to Down East Maine would be far more difficult even if they did have an airport like Logan.
The game is in Boston
Oh right... ROFL... I am having trouble keeping track of all of this! :) Makes more sense, doesn't it?!
Well then... Monday Funday?
To follow up... the regional rankings will still be released on Thursday this week despite the NCAA stat computers coming back online a day earlier than expected this weekend.
Case Western 71 Brandeis 55
This week's schedule for the Great Lakes rankings candidates. Since this weeks poll is released tomorrow I've underlined last weeks ranked teams for tonight
Wednesday games
Otterbein 69 at Marietta 95
Oberlin 76 at Ohio Wesleyan 106
Allegheny 63 at Wooster 80
Kalamazoo 55 at Hope 67
Thiel 58 at St.Vincent 78
Mt. Union 81 at John Carroll 88
Hilbert 60 at PSU-Behrend 64
Calvin 87 at Olivet 74
Mt. St. Joeseph 82 at Anderson 69
Friday
Emory (17-5) at Case Western (15-7)
Saturday's games
Ohio Northern (12-12) at Marietta (22-2)
Ohio Wesleyan (20-4) at DePauw (16-8)
Wooster (19-5) at Oberlin (10-14)
Adrian (8-16) at Hope (17-7)
Thomas More (16-8) at St. Vincent (18-6)
Muskingum (6-18) at John Carroll (18-5)
Mt. Union (18-6) at Wilmington (11-12)
Pitt-Greensburg (13-11) at PSU-Behrend (22-2)
Calvin (18-6) at Albion (12-12)
Mt. St. Joeseph (19-5) at Rose-Hulman (14-10)
Sunday
Rochester (9-13) at Case Western (15-7)
Week 2's regional rankings made an early appearance today: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630 (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630)
You almost knew it was going to happen but it's weird to see Mount Union ahead of JCU in these rankings.
1 Marietta 21-2 21-2
2 Ohio Wesleyan 19-4 19-4
3 Wooster 18-5 18-5
4 Mount Union 18-5 18-5
5 John Carroll 17-5 17-5
6 Case 12-6 14-7
7 Calvin 16-5 17-6
8 Penn St.-Behrend 21-2 21-2
9 Hope 14-7 15-8
Rankings will look different next week. ;D
The fact they still have Hope ahead of St. Vincent is significant. I guess.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
You almost knew it was going to happen but it's weird to see Mount Union ahead of JCU in these rankings.
Of course the question is now, how far does Mt. Union fall losing to JCU. They were behind Hope before Hope lost last week, now MtU. lost.
Hope is not totally out of the Pool C picture from this region, they would need JCU to probably lose twice and Case to lose at least once. Hope could easily end up the 2nd team from this region at the table if tournaments went chalk.
The problem will be Hope's criteria won't match-up well nationally (mostly win%) and would be a long shot to grab one of the final two spots. It would be highly dependent on Pool A upsets and that's a bridge a little too far I'm afraid.
To be honest, the region might need to be careful with Hope. Put them up too high, they could block other teams from getting in. Hard to read with 10 days left in the season... but could be worth watching in that region.
Dave:
It seems at this point, Marietta is locked in as a Pool C team in the event that they fail to win the OAC tournament. In short, they are going to the tournament. However, should 'Etta win the OAC tournament/A berth, are there realistic opportunities for either Mount or JCU to get an at-large berth in they lose in the semi or the final (and barring suffering an upset on Saturday) next week? It would seem so.
Outside of Wooster though the Great Lakes doesn't have great C candidates and even Wooster is iffy if Pool A upsets go the wrong way.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 19, 2015, 11:44:43 AM
Dave:
It seems at this point, Marietta is locked in as a Pool C team in the event that they fail to win the OAC tournament. In short, they are going to the tournament. However, should 'Etta win the OAC tournament/A berth, are there realistic opportunities for either Mount or JCU to get an at-large berth in they lose in the semi or the final (and barring suffering an upset on Saturday) next week? It would seem so.
JCU and Mt.U seem to be on the outside looking in at this point.
That's how I see it, too. To much needs to happen to position themselves for a Pool C.
Yeah... I think Marietta appears to be safe, but they need to keep winning as well. Can't lay down right now. The worry I have is their SOS is .512 through Sunday and that is in what I consider the danger area. They are 4-2 vRRO and that would improve if they face JCU or MU in the tournament... as will their SOS, slightly. They certainly aren't in the danger of Staten Island last year, or Albertus Magnus this year, where their SOS is so poor it is going to kill their chances. However, they take another loss and drop in the rankings, then you need to be worried.
As for another pick from the NCAC... the resumes aren't great, but I wouldn't be surprised if another NCAC team got in... however, as previously noted, it will depend on how many upsets take place in conference tournaments. The bubble is already very sensitive... it will get very precarious when upsets take place (and you know, upsets are going to take place this year).
Marietta is pretty close to being a lock. They probably don't want to lose to Ohio Northern and then get bounced in the opening game of the OAC Tournament, but leaving that possibility aside they're probably in.
Similar for Wooster and Ohio Wesleyan. If they can both win their final game and first tournament game, they're probably both in as well.
No one else in the GL is close to safe. In fact, I doubt anyone else will garner much Pool C consideration.
Using your chart, Louisiana College is being blocked by Hardin-Simmons and Case Western is blocked by Mt. Union/John Carroll. Only two I could find that are top 19 but blocked by rankings.
Doing it the way the NCAA would do it, without upsets I had Mt. Union as the 19th Pool C.
Final table was
Brooklyn
NYU
Northeast #12 - unlikely to be picked but maybe
Franklin and Marshall
Hardin-Simmons
Chapman
Central Region #9 -def. would not be picked
Mt. Union.
Its really a toss up when you get to this point.
Selected in order
Bates
Whitewater
Emory
Washington
William Patterson
Amherst
Dickenson
Wooster
North Central
Elmhurst
Illinois Wesleyan
Va. Wesleyan
WPI
Bowdoin
Springfield
St. Olaf
Dubuque
Whitman
Rhode Island
Mt. Union.
I doubt the CCIW gets 4, so still one vacant slot, but truthfully right now the 4th CCIW team is looking ok. If they don't get a 4th then Chapman, NYU and John Carroll would get a look.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
To be honest, the region might need to be careful with Hope. Put them up too high, they could block other teams from getting in. Hard to read with 10 days left in the season... but could be worth watching in that region.
Its not blocking if Hope has the better criteria. They actually have very solid criteria including a couple solid head-to-head wins in this region against OWU and Mt.Union, other head-to-head others only back those up. They have 1 more loss than they needed and that's really it.
(wrong quote earlier, sorry)
Remember... when it comes to the national decisions... head-to-heads are going to mean nothing. Head-to-heads are great for in-region discussions and rankings, but the chances Hope is sitting at the table against another team they played as far slimmer.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 01:14:19 PM
Remember... when it comes to the national decisions... head-to-heads are going to mean nothing. Head-to-heads are great for in-region discussions and rankings, but the chances Hope is sitting at the table against another team they played as far slimmer.
Isn't that what you were discussing when you mentioned Hope as a "blocking team" in this region. That would be discussing regional rankings which makes head-to-heads very relevant.
What I am trying to say is you are using head-to-head as the criteria to move them into a position higher in the poll where it seems you believe they will be. You seem to use head-to-head to make your case as stating they have better criteria.
What I am trying to say is head-to-head may be nice in the region, but the committee both regionally and nationally is going to look at more than that criteria. Hope's SOS is .552 and falling, they are 2-5 vRRO (not great), and are the Mendoza line of .667 WP%. I don't think head-to-head will trump those last two numbers to be sure and if the Great Lakes Region puts them ahead of teams because of head-to-head than they will block the rest of the region from getting an at-large... because head-to-head won't help when they get to the national table.
Yes, head-to-head matters in region and I think it is used to help break ties amongst teams, but if that is the criteria that gives Hope the edge... I believe the committee needs to consider not having that be the only reason Hope is higher than someone else. (I hope that makes sense... I have been talking so much regional stuff today I am getting a bit fried).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 02:19:32 PM
What I am trying to say is you are using head-to-head as the criteria to move them into a position higher in the poll where it seems you believe they will be. You seem to use head-to-head to make your case as stating they have better criteria.
What I am trying to say is head-to-head may be nice in the region, but the committee both regionally and nationally is going to look at more than that criteria. Hope's SOS is .552 and falling, they are 2-5 vRRO (not great), and are the Mendoza line of .667 WP%. I don't think head-to-head will trump those last two numbers to be sure and if the Great Lakes Region puts them ahead of teams because of head-to-head than they will block the rest of the region from getting an at-large... because head-to-head won't help when they get to the national table.
Yes, head-to-head matters in region and I think it is used to help break ties amongst teams, but if that is the criteria that gives Hope the edge... I believe the committee needs to consider not having that be the only reason Hope is higher than someone else. (I hope that makes sense... I have been talking so much regional stuff today I am getting a bit fried).
Honestly, you frequently seem to have trouble understanding anything I post.
I posted this earlier, I think I make my points on Hope pretty clear Dave.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2015, 11:26:14 AM
The fact they still have Hope ahead of St. Vincent is significant. I guess.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 19, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
You almost knew it was going to happen but it's weird to see Mount Union ahead of JCU in these rankings.
Of course the question is now, how far does Mt. Union fall losing to JCU. They were behind Hope before Hope lost last week, now MtU. lost.
Hope is not totally out of the Pool C picture from this region, they would need JCU to probably lose twice and Case to lose at least once. Hope could easily end up the 2nd team from this region at the table if tournaments went chalk.
The problem will be Hope's criteria won't match-up well nationally (mostly win%) and would be a long shot to grab one of the final two spots. It would be highly dependent on Pool A upsets and that's a bridge a little too far I'm afraid.
Hope's head-to-head win over Mt. Union is in fact very significant(and their OWU win). Hope was ahead of Mt. Union last week and both have now lost since (Mt. Union last night, obviously not included in this weeks poll) Hope would not be blocking anyone if the above scenario played out.
I understand sac... I was basing my thought on the head-to-head comment. There is a lot in play.
I will say this... .667 WL% will probably eliminate Hope from being an at-large team. I have been basically told as much... just as I have heard from others that teams below .500 in SOS probably won't get in either. Just some extra information for people to ponder.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 02:32:11 PM
I understand sac... I was basing my thought on the head-to-head comment. There is a lot in play.
I will say this... .667 WL% will probably eliminate Hope from being an at-large team. I have been basically told as much... just as I have heard from others that teams below .500 in SOS probably won't get in either. Just some extra information for people to ponder.
You're still basically arguing against something I never said.
sac - what you highlighted wasn't arguing with you... as the last sentence stated... it was extra information to ponder.
I look forward to these February lectures.
sac - lecture? I was sharing information I have gathered over the last few weeks. I thought you would want to know items that seem important. Where in the world do you think I am lecturing?
If I may, I think maybe you are talking past each other here. If I understand correctly, SAC is pointing out that a relatively highly ranked Hope would be an accurate reflection of the criteria, including their HtH wins versus other GL contenders, whereas Dave is saying that, regardless of Hope's relative position within the GL, they are DOA on the national Pool C table, and might be ranked ahead of other GL teams whose resumes might be stronger for Pool C consideration. Hence, "blocking."
As a purist (hah!), I would hope that the GL committee would not take this into consideration when doing the regional rankings. I don't believe that "stronger national resume" is one of the criteria. But as a purist, I would also hope that the regional committees apply the same criteria in the same way as the national committee, making it impossible for a lower-ranked team to have a stronger national resume.
I also hope for world peace, btw.
Agree with DC here. If Hope's portfolio is better than other GL teams when blinded to the rest of the nation, but not better than those same GL teams when we include the rest of the nation, then we're probably doing something wrong with the criteria. This bit of nuance pops up in football also, so it's not just a hoops thing. The idea that committees might rank teams based on who they think would get selected nationally also leaves some conspiracy threads dangling about that we could do without.
Looks like yesterday was a good day to be stuck in project management training all day and not on the boards.
Emory 71 Case Western 65
That about does it for CW's pool c chances.
Wednesday games
Otterbein 69 at Marietta 95
Oberlin 76 at Ohio Wesleyan 106
Allegheny 63 at Wooster 80
Kalamazoo 55 at Hope 67
Thiel 58 at St.Vincent 78
Mt. Union 81 at John Carroll 88
Hilbert 60 at PSU-Behrend 64
Calvin 87 at Olivet 74
Mt. St. Joeseph 82 at Anderson 69
Friday
Emory 71 at Case Western 55
Saturday's games
Ohio Wesleyan 86 at DePauw 77
Wooster 58 at Oberlin 45
Adrian 41 at Hope 56
Thomas More 72 at St. Vincent 81
Mt. Union 74 at Wilmington 71
Pitt-Greensburg 64 at PSU-Behrend 91
Calvin 71 at Albion 54
Going into tomorrow Mt Union and Case Western are the only two ranked teams to lose a game this week.
Sunday
Rochester (9-13) at Case Western (15-7)
Muskingum (6-18) at John Carroll (18-5)
Mt. St. Joeseph (19-5) at Rose-Hulman (14-10)
Ohio Northern (12-12) at Marietta (22-2)
Defiance (18-6) at Franklin (5-19)
Case losses to Rochester at home, they're in danger of falling out of the rankings.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Case losses to Rochester at home, they're in danger of falling out of the rankings.
I think they have to be out don't they?
Marietta, OWU, Wooster, John Carroll, Calvin, PSU-Behrend all won. For the last three spots its probably....
Mt. Union 19-6 .760/.530/2-5 Case Western 13-8 .619/.575/2-4
Hope 16-7 .696/.543/2-5St. Vincent 18-6 .750/.515/2-2Mt. St. Joeseph 18-6 .750/.475/0-1
Defiance 18-6 .739/.481/0-1 **currently playing Franklin at time of this post
Wabash 13-8 .619/.516/2-2
Baldwin Wallace 16-8 .667/.493/0-7
Trine 16-8 .667/.488/3-4
DePauw and Hilbert have awful SOS numbers. The bolded teams clearly have the best criteria of this bunch.
The SOS numbers are current from ks' blog.
Mt. Union still has the problem of losing to both Hope and St. Vincent.
If its close between Hope/St. Vincent again, comparative scores is still in Hope's favor (esp vs Wooster)
I think Ohio Wesleyan is very close to Marietta, but I think the Pioneers stay on top. Their only two losses are to regionally ranked opponents.
RG ## WP bSOS bRPI NAT Pool D3 RRO CONFER TEAM
GL 01 0.920 0.506 0.610 018 A 23-2 3-2 OAC Marietta
GL 02 0.840 0.534 0.610 016 A 21-4 3-1 NCAC Ohio Wesleyan
GL 03 0.800 0.542 0.607 020 C 20-5 2-2 NCAC Wooster
GL 04 0.792 0.516 0.585 043 C 19-5 3-2 OAC John Carroll
GL 05 0.760 0.530 0.587 040 C 19-6 2-4 OAC Mount Union
GL 06 0.783 0.502 0.572 069 A 18-5 2-1 MIAA Calvin
GL 07 0.920 0.458 0.573 067 A 23-2 0-1 AMCC Penn State-Behrend
GL 08 0.696 0.543 0.581 048 C 16-7 2-5 MIAA Hope
GL 09 0.750 0.515 0.574 065 A 18-6 2-2 PrAC St. Vincent
---
gl 10 0.619 0.560 0.575 062 C 13-8 2-4 UAA Case Western Reserve
Mount Union and John Carroll are very close. I'll give the edge to JCU's 3-2 record vRRO. It gets messy starting with the #6 spot again. I'll just bump Case down and everyone else up. Also, it's not a stated criterion, but I think the committees DO look at how teams finish (e.g. final 25% of season), and Case has now lost 5 of 6.
Case may very well be in there, but the committee has been averse to ranking anyone below a .667 winning percentage. If they make it in, it's probably St. Vincent on the outside.
If either Calvin or Hope win the MIAA Tournament, they could end up as high as #3 in the final secret rankings, depending on what happens in the other conferences.
I'm not sure how Case would bump St. Vincent anywhere (as St. Vincent and Case is trying for an at large bid).
I'm also not sure how Case would have a shot with a host of other teams having much stronger resumes for the pool c bid.
I'd say Case's season is done.
GREAT LAKES
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 23-2 23-2
2 Ohio Wesleyan 21-4 21-4
3 Wooster 20-5 20-5
4 John Carroll 19-5 19-5
5 Mount Union 19-6 19-6
6 Penn St.-Behrend 23-2 23-2
7 Calvin 18-5 19-6
8 Saint Vincent 18-6 19-6
9 Hope 16-7 17-8
Link: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/25/final-public-ncaa-regional-rankings-released/
Really don't agree with PSU-Behrend being ahead of Calvin or St. Vincent ahead of Hope.
PSU-Behrend's SOS is atrocious at .458
Hope/St. Vincent is close and all the common opponent comparison scores they are supposed to look at are in Hope's favor.
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2015, 02:01:16 PM
Really don't agree with PSU-Behrend being ahead of Calvin or St. Vincent ahead of Hope.
PSU-Behrend's SOS is atrocious at .458
Hope/St. Vincent is close and all the common opponent comparison scores they are supposed to look at are in Hope's favor.
I think you can justify any of it, except I don't see Hope below St. Vincent. Common opponents are the same (both lost to Wooster) except St. Vincent lost a neutral site game with Trine and Hope split a home-and-home. As far as RvRRO, St. Vincent beat Catholic and Hope beat Ohio Wesleyan (both beat Mt. Union). In addition Hope has losses to Calvin (x2), Whitewater, and Stevens Point. St. Vincent has a loss to Marietta.
One thing I do hear from some as time goes on... eventually WL% can't be ignored just for the SOS being too high or too low. All three teams like PSU-Behrend (PSU-Behrend, Albertus Magnus, St. Norbert) moved up or at least held firm (for SNC in a tough Central) and that tells me the WL% factor is at least being semi-respected.
This is where the inconsistency of this poll gets people. The first two polls Hope is ahead of St. Vincent, even after Hope lost to Alma. St. Vincent did nothing last week that should have moved them ahead of Hope.
....and neither did PSU-Behrend do anything that should have moved them ahead of Calvin.
FYI - they don't look at where the teams were and if they should move them up or down. They pretty much clean the slate and start over each and every week and have a discussions about each head-to-head and multiple team situations. This isn't like the Top 25 where I consider why I had a team #10 and if I should move them up and down and in comparison to another team. The regional and national committees start fresh each time.
IF you look at it from that point of view... start from the beginning again and rank as if you never ranked before... some of this might make more sense, I would assume (since I am busy right now hitting refresh/F5 to get the women's rankings published).
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2015, 02:14:43 PM
This is where the inconsistency of this poll gets people. The first two polls Hope is ahead of St. Vincent, even after Hope lost to Alma. St. Vincent did nothing last week that should have moved them ahead of Hope.
....and neither did PSU-Behrend do anything that should have moved them ahead of Calvin.
Hope gained .029 in WP and lost .009 in SOS from last week.
St. Vincent gained .023 in WP and gained .003 in SOS from last week.
So, St. Vincent DID gain ground, according to the criteria.
What gets me every time is the idea that "at some point" SOS or WP (or whatever) needs to win out. It would seem impossible to avoid bad artificial boundaries that way, even if they're not intentional boundaries.
The perception between .499 and .501 SOS is huge, bigger than the actual difference. Likewise .699 and .701 WP.
Well if you are taking the words from me "at some point" that is my words - no one elses. I think they look at the two comparatively to see how the SOS and WL% compare to one another to understand each set of numbers better. What I am getting at is that I think ... at some point ... if a team is still winning, the committees start to at least acknowledge that despite maybe a poor SOS. Considering the fact the SOS numbers are always changing.
Hope compares better to St. Vincent in 3 of the 4 primary criteria. Just as they did 2 weeks ago and last week.
There are six primary criteria ... how do they compare in the other two? (Again, I am busy hitting refresh on the women's rankings - or I would look into it myself.)
Another thought - the committee apparently doesn't consider each category as a "win" or a "loss" when comparing teams. Learned that the other day when I mentioned it - they look at all the data and see who has better data. That isn't going to make things easier for us, as I like a "win" or "loss" in a category to make it easier.
Also, go outside of just the two teams. If you started comparing another team right around Hope and St. Vincent and make it a three-team comparison, what does it do to your rankings thinking. I know the committees sometimes do that. They may look at Team A and Team B and come up with an answer. They then take Team B and compare it to Team C and come up with another answer. Then they compare Team C with Team A and get a different answer then they expected... resulting in looking at all three teams together. That can change rankings quickly.
There are five primary criteria (WP, SOS, RvRRO, Common Opponents, H2H), and one (head-to-head) is not applicable in this case.
I'm still not sure I would consider 2-5 to be "better" than 2-2, just not worse.
Sorry - I added wrong LOL
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2015, 01:51:04 PM
GREAT LAKES
| Rank | School | In-Region Record | Overall Record |
| 1 | Marietta | 23-2 | 23-2 |
| 2 | Ohio Wesleyan | 21-4 | 21-4 |
| 3 | Wooster | 20-5 | 20-5 |
| 4 | John Carroll | 19-5 | 19-5 |
| 5 | Mount Union | 19-6 | 19-6 |
| 6 | Penn St.-Behrend | 23-2 | 23-2 |
| 7 | Calvin | 18-5 | 19-6 |
| 8 | Saint Vincent | 18-6 | 19-6 |
| 9 | Hope | 16-7 | 17-8 |
Link: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/25/final-public-ncaa-regional-rankings-released/
Early look at in-region records among Great Lakes Region teams. Let me know if I missed any. I counted a couple games against Illinois Tech that I'm not sure should count (Wabash, Denison) I'll narrow this list down a bit more after next Sunday's games.
If we were ranking them today, at least one and probably 2 of those teams above the .700 line wouldn't be ranked.
Updated thru Wed 1/10
John Carroll 13-0
Hope 10-0
Ohio Wesleyan 12-1
Hiram 11-1
PSU-Behrend 10-1
------------------------.900
Marietta 11-2
Hilbert 11-2
Trine 10-2
------------------------.800
St. Vincent 10-3
Mt. Union 9-3
------------------------.700
Alma 9-4
Wooster 8-4
Mt. St. Joseph 8-4
Grove City 8-4
Thomas More 8-4
Case Western 8-4
Manchester 7-4
Wittenberg 8-5
Baldwin-Wallace 8-5
Heidelberg 8-5
Pitt-Greensburg 8-5
Calvin 6-4
------------------------.600
Wabash 7-5
Denison 7-5
Hanover 7-5
Capital 7-5
Bethany 7-5
Oberlin 6-5
Carnegie-Mellon 6-5
Adrian 5-5
Bluffton 5-5
-----------------------------------.500
DePauw 6-7
Defiance 6-7
Rose-Hulman 6-7
Kenyon 5-6
Albion 4-6
Kind of a big week at the top of several Great Lakes conferences, all of these games are between teams either tied at the top of their conferences or between current 1st and 2nd place teams
MIAA 1/13 Hope at Alma
NCAC 1/13 Hiram at Wooster
HCAC 1/13 Hanover at Mt. St. Joseph
OAC 1/16 Mt. Union at John Carroll
PAC 1/16 Thomas More at St. Vincent
AMCC 1/16 Hilbert at Pitt Greensburg
Updated thru Sun 1/17
John Carroll 15-0
Ohio Wesleyan 14-1
PSU-Behrend 12-1
Hope 11-1
------------------------.900
Marietta 13-2
Hilbert 13-2
St. Vincent 12-3
------------------------.800
Trine 11-3
Hiram 11-3
Alma 11-4
Mt. Union 10-4
Mt. St. Joseph 10-4
------------------------.700
Wittenberg 10-5
Baldwin-Wallace 10-5
Wooster 9-5
Grove City 9-5
Thomas More 9-5
Bethany 9-5
Manchester 8-5
Oberlin 8-5
Heidelberg 9-6
Pitt-Greensburg 9-6
------------------------.600
Calvin 7-5
Case Western 8-6
Denison 8-6
Hanover 8-6
Kenyon 7-6
Defiance 8-7
Wabash 7-7
Capital 7-7
Albion 6-6
-----------------------------------.500
Dropped : DePauw, Rose-Hulman, Carnegie-Mellon, Adrian, Bluffton. All now below .500 with at least 7 in-region losses, pretty unrealistic ranking possibilities at this point in the season.
Northcoast:
Still many teams in play, though that realism could be debated. Witt's win over Wooster gives them a punchers chance now and puts Wooster precariously close to that edge of being on the outside looking in to the NCAA tournament.
MIAA:
Focus switches to Alma, Trine and Albion as those 3 teams meet in the next 3 game days. We'll throw in a Calvin/Hope game next week. Two big games for Alma this week.
OAC:
John Carroll took a big step last week to an OAC title beating Mt. Union. This week Mt. Union and Marietta meet on Wednesday and we're getting to the point Mt. Union really can't afford more losses with their schedule remaining, loser probably falls two games back.
HCAC:
Mt. St. Joseph won two last week improving their viability as a possible ranked team. Pretty quiet week coming up in the HCAC
PAC:
St. Vincent can virtually slam the door shut on the PAC crown if Bethany beats Grove City and then St. V beats Bethany next week. 3 game lead with 4 weeks to go would be just about a lock.
AMCC:
PSU-Behrend and Hilbert clash on Monday, winner takes over the top spot in the league.
Monday game
Hilbert at PSU-Behrend
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Saturday games
Albion at Alma
Denison at Ohio Wesleyan
Kenyon at Hiram
Oberlin at Wabash
Defiance at Mt. St. Joseph
Heidelberg at Marietta
St. Vincent at Bethany
Final random thought: I'm not sure when the last NCAA tournament without Calvin, Wooster or Wittenberg took place, if ever, but that is a real possibility this year.
knightslappy's RPI data for a closer look: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
I think what his data really shows is how difficult it will be for St. Vincent, Hilbert, PSU-Behrend, Hiram and Mt. St. Joseph to receive a ranking due to SOS.
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:41:25 PM
knightslappy's RPI data for a closer look: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
I think what his data really shows is how difficult it will be for St. Vincent, Hilbert, PSU-Behrend, Hiram and Mt. St. Joseph to receive a ranking due to SOS.
But it does happen every year. I know everyone loves the SOS and understands the men's committee(s) looks at it seriously... but that doesn't mean the WL% and other criteria is ignored. They might not get ranked high, but we have seen in numerous situations where a low SOS with a very, very good WL% still get ranked.
Did you even look at the data of the teams I mentioned or their w/l records relative to the other teams in the Great Lakes Region?
sac - looking at the data is irrelevant to my point. I have seen some ridiculous SOS numbers and seen teams ranked (Albertus Magnus, Cabrini, etc.). I am simply saying that just because it seems like there is no way a one-loss team (or in this case some worse-than-one-loss teams) looks like they have an SOS to be ranked... they do end up being ranked because at some point the committee actually does reward WL%.
Now, I will also say this... SOS numbers this time of year are still very much out of whack. I do like seeing the numbers from KnightSlappy because just like Massey (which I also don't buy much stock in this time of year), they at least give me a sense of where a team might stand in terms of what they had for an out-of-conference schedule and what they may have ahead of them. So while you may not think their SOS numbers warrant ranking because they are so bad... remember, that SOS number will move towards .500 by default as they play more conference games.
It is just a friendly reminder that SOS is certainly a powerful number, but it isn't the be-all and end-all as even last year pointed out.
So your point was basically, yeah but. Gotcha
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 12:57:02 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
I fixed it, I don't know what was going on there. One of those nights I guess.
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 12:57:02 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
Fans at Oberlin will be mad that Hiram left most of it's stars at home....
Quote from: smedindy on January 18, 2016, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 12:57:02 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
Fans at Oberlin will be mad that Hiram left most of it's stars at home....
Mad... or relieved? :)
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2016, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 12:57:02 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
I fixed it, I don't know what was going on there. One of those nights I guess.
You never should have appointed that emergency manager to take over your posting responsibilities. When you supersede the will of the people, only bad things can happen.
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 05:33:59 PM
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2016, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2016, 12:57:02 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2016, 11:25:49 PM
Wednesday games
Alma at Trine
Denison at Hiram
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Wittenberg at Kenyon
Hiram at Oberlin
John Carroll at Baldwin-Wallace
Marietta at Mt. Union
Grove City at Bethany
Split-squad games.
(Actually it's Denison at Hiram, Oberlin at OWU.)
I fixed it, I don't know what was going on there. One of those nights I guess.
You never should have appointed that emergency manager to take over your posting responsibilities. When you supersede the will of the people, only bad things can happen.
Its ok Dave I've appointed a special committee to look into what went wrong (ie make sure you find out its someone else's fault). In about 18 months I'll be showing my full commitment to getting to the bottom of the situation.
PSU-Behrend 69 Hilbert 58.....was much closer until the very end but PSU-B led for most of it.
For Hilbert that is loss #3 and a positively horrific SOS, the worst on KS's chart. I imagine they're going to have to win the AMCC tournament to qualify for the NCAA's. Behrend's going to end up with a great record, hopefully they win the AMCC auto-bid because that's a Pool C selection blocking team, also a poor SOS.
Quote from: sac on January 18, 2016, 09:13:35 PM
PSU-Behrend 69 Hilbert 58.....was much closer until the very end but PSU-B led for most of it.
For Hilbert that is loss #3 and a positively horrific SOS, the worst on KS's chart. I imagine they're going to have to win the AMCC tournament to qualify for the NCAA's. Behrend's going to end up with a great record, hopefully they win the AMCC auto-bid because that's a Pool C selection blocking team, also a poor SOS.
I don't see PSU-B climbing above the OAC #2 or MIAA #2. I really don't see them blocking Mt. Union, JCU, Marietta, Hope, Alma, or Trine, but I guess we never know what the RAC is thinking.
the potential is there though, even though it shouldn't be.
Updated thru Sun 1/24
John Carroll 17-0
Ohio Wesleyan 16-1
PSU-Behrend 15-1
Hope 13-1
------------------------.900
Marietta 15-2
------------------------.800
Hilbert 14-4
Alma 13-4
St. Vincent 13-4
Trine 12-4
Hiram 12-4
Wittenberg 12-5
------------------------.700
Mt. Union 11-5
Mt. St. Joseph 11-5
Wooster 11-5
Grove City 11-5
Pitt-Greensburg 11-6
Thomas More 10-6
Bethany 10-6
Manchester 9-6
Oberlin 9-6
------------------------.600
Baldwin-Wallace 10-7
Defiance 10-7
Calvin 8-6
Denison 9-7
Hanover 9-7
-----------------------------------.500
Dropped: Kenyon and Albion, both under .500 with 8 losses. Heidelberg, Case Western, Wabash, Capital all now have 8 losses and unrealistic ranking possibilities
Northcoast: Big game with Wooster hosting Ohio Wesleyan on Wed. A Chance for OWU to open a two game lead. Getting close to must win type games for everyone else
MIAA: Calvin at Hope on Wednesday and a wobbly looking Trine hosts Albion. Hope goes to Albion Saturday, Alma will play Olivet and Kzoo.
OAC: Baldwin-Wallace hosts Mt. Union and Marietta this week. Should be quiet until the last week or two unless BW makes an impact, Mt Union in must win mode.
PAC: Bethany beat St. Vincent Sunday to keep the PAC a little interesting but still a 2 game lead for the fighting Vincents
HCAC: MSJ and Defiance are now tied again at the top, Hanover 1 back, Manchester lurking. Feels like this could go many directions
AMCC: PSU-Behrend won their Monday showdown with Hilbert then Hilbert lost again to Medaille. Behrend now lead Pitt-Greensburg by 1 game, not much going on this week
Wednesday Games
Calvin at Hope
Ohio Wesleyan at Wooster
Oberlin at Kenyon
John Carroll at Heidelberg
Mt. Union at Baldwin-Wallace
Thomas More at Grove City
Saturday
Calvin at Trine
Hiram at Ohio Wesleyan
Denison at Wittenberg
Mt. St. Joseph at Manchester
Hanover at Defiance
Marietta at Baldwin-Wallace
Knightslappy has updated his ranking for the RPI look, not quite updated with the PAC games this afternoon.
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
I think if you take those top nine, take out Albion and add PSU-Behrend you have the 9 likely teams that would be ranked if we ranked them this week. First rankings are next Wednesday Feb 3.
Quote from: sac on January 24, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
Knightslappy has updated his ranking for the RPI look, not quite updated with the PAC games this afternoon.
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
I think if you take those top nine, take out Albion and add PSU-Behrend you have the 9 likely teams that would be ranked if we ranked them this week. First rankings are next Wednesday Feb 3.
No... first rankings Feb. 10.
There are only three public rankings and the season ends Feb. 28 with brackets announced Feb. 29.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 25, 2016, 12:23:46 PM
Quote from: sac on January 24, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
Knightslappy has updated his ranking for the RPI look, not quite updated with the PAC games this afternoon.
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
I think if you take those top nine, take out Albion and add PSU-Behrend you have the 9 likely teams that would be ranked if we ranked them this week. First rankings are next Wednesday Feb 3.
No... first rankings Feb. 10.
There are only three public rankings and the season ends Feb. 28 with brackets announced Feb. 29.
Correct, release dates are Feb 10, 17, 24. So the first set of rankings will include games through Feb 7.
I think I'm finally current on the data, minus the postponements.
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
If rankings were coming out this week, I'd say
Ohio Wesleyan
John Carroll
Marietta
Alma
Hope
Trine
Wooster
would be safely ranked, and probably in that rough order (without doing a deep check on common opponents and the like).
Then it would come down to two of three of:
St. Vincent
Penn State-Behrend
Mount Union
Hiram would be next, but they don't seem to stack up particularly well with these three. Although they probably have better RROs and a common opponent advantage over PSU-B (La Roche).
Updated thru Sun 1/31
John Carroll 19-0
PSU-Behrend 17-1
Hope 15-1
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 17-2
Marietta 17-2
Hilbert 16-4
------------------------.800
Alma 15-4
St. Vincent 15-4
Trine 13-5
Hiram 13-5
Mt. Union 13-5
Mt. St. Joseph 13-5
Wooster 13-5
------------------------.700
Thomas More 12-6
Pitt-Greensburg 12-7
Wittenberg 12-7
Grove City 11-7
Bethany 11-7
Denison 11-7
------------------------.600
Manchester 10-7
Oberlin 10-7
Hanover 10-8
Calvin 8-8
-----------------------------------.500
Dropped: Baldwin-Wallace and Defiance, both have 9 losses which is not likely to be ranked. There are 2 or 3 eight loss teams I've removed that I might reconsider adding back if they make it through next week without another loss.
Northcoast: OWU and Wooster are now tied with a 3 game cushion back to 3rd. Wooster has what is probably the last significant threat game remaining hosting Wittenberg the following week. Witt took 2 losses last week and is probably squarely on a bubble of some kind.
MIAA: Alma at Hope Saturday in a big game of importance to league and region, but many tough games remain for both teams.
OAC: JCU, Marietta and Mt. Union have separated from the pack, they all play each other the final two weeks. Capital has played all 3 tough in the 4 matchups with the top 3, they play at Marietta Wed. and host JCU Saturday.
PAC: St. Vincent leads over Thomas More by 2 full games with no head-to-head remaining, its all but clinched really unless they really screw up.
HCAC: MSJ now has a two game lead, nobody else is really in a ranking position
AMCC: PSU-Behrend leads by 2 games in the loss column over Hilbert and Greensburg, all 3 play each other in the last 2 weeks. Nothing much happening this week.
Wednesday Games
Wittenberg at Ohio Wesleyan
Denison at Oberlin
Bethany at Thomas More
Saturday
Alma at Hope
Wittenberg at Oberlin
Manchester at Hanover
Knightslappy has his RPI type ranking updated through today.
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Just like last week, probably remove Albion and replace them with PSU-Behrend and you get the 9 teams that would most likely be ranked. I'm a little suspicious that they might find a way to include Mt. St. Joseph and St. Vincent even though they probably shouldn't.
Still not sure what to do with Marietta and John Carroll, but they're 1-2. JCU probably has the edge due to the undefeated thing and the head-to-head thing.
So for our final fake rankings before the real rankings come out, I'd go with:
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. Mount Union
8. Trine
9. Penn State-Behrend, but one could construct a very compelling case for Hiram. RAC will spend a lot of time on this spot, maybe more than any other spot. I think I'd personally lean Hiram.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2016, 09:32:32 AM
Still not sure what to do with Marietta and John Carroll, but they're 1-2. JCU probably has the edge due to the undefeated thing and the head-to-head thing.
So for our final fake rankings before the real rankings come out, I'd go with:
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. Mount Union
8. Trine
9. Penn State-Behrend, but one could construct a very compelling case for Hiram. RAC will spend a lot of time on this spot, maybe more than any other spot. I think I'd personally lean Hiram.
I like this list although I may switch Marietta and OWU. It's close though. The top 5 in my mind are the cream of the crop in the region and you could make an argument for any of them. I think Wooster, Mount, and Trine are a good 2nd tier in the region. All good teams, but have had spills during the year. I think PS-Behrend is solid for the 9 spot as I don't think Hiram is done losing before the first rankings come out. They've lost 4 of their last 6 and go out on the road for two this week. Behrend looks like smooth sailing until the final week of the season when they go to #2 Hilbert and #3 Pitt-Greensburg.
I went with Marietta over OWU because they (i.e. Marietta) have the a .016 SOS advantage with identical winning percentages. Marietta is also 1-0 vs. Wooster (at Wooster) while OWU is 1-1 (splitting the home and home).
I don't know if there are other head-to-heads that would come into play, didn't scour the schedules.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2016, 10:10:54 AM
I went with Marietta over OWU because they (i.e. Marietta) have the a .016 SOS advantage with identical winning percentages. Marietta is also 1-0 vs. Wooster (at Wooster) while OWU is 1-1 (splitting the home and home).
I don't know if there are other head-to-heads that would come into play, didn't scour the schedules.
Both have wins over Otterbein and Capital. Moot point.
You probably know more about this than I do but what is the difference between your SOS calculation that shows Marietta having the better SOS and Massey which highlights OWU having the better SOS (in addition to Hope as well). Always wondered about those differences.
In addition to the conversation on SOS. I spoke with Dave Niland from PS-Behrend a week ago and the topic of SOS came up in regards to Behrend and the AMCC's schedule. He mentioned that a lot of games are already agreed upon games that come up with their affiliation with the ECAC. It sounds like a lot of the schedule is fixed with regional teams from the ECAC and I didn't get the impression that there is a desire to change that mind of thinking.
Marietta's win over Catholic could prove to be the difference if they and OWU end up with the same win%. But, I think its much more likely Marietta drops one, OWU has all its big games behind them after their trip to Wittenberg on Wednesday. Then its all the bottom 5 teams in the NCAC. Marietta still has to play Capital, JCU and Mt.U. Marietta will also get a tougher conference tournament semi-final if they finish 2nd or 3rd than if OWU gets the #2 position in the NCAC.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
In addition to the conversation on SOS. I spoke with Dave Niland from PS-Behrend a week ago and the topic of SOS came up in regards to Behrend and the AMCC's schedule. He mentioned that a lot of games are already agreed upon games that come up with their affiliation with the ECAC. It sounds like a lot of the schedule is fixed with regional teams from the ECAC and I didn't get the impression that there is a desire to change that mind of thinking.
Really? I have NEVER heard a coach or anyone else reference an affiliation with the ECAC as reasons they have to play certain games. There are breaks in the season (10 days at some point) they have to keep in order to "play" in the "postseason," but never heard of having to play particular teams just because of their affiliation. That is either a cop out or a misunderstanding on someone's part and certainly something I will be now raising as a question.
Behrend has only 24 games scheduled this year.
Non-Conference games
Last year: Thiel, Allegheny, Fredonia, Carnegie-Mellon, Westminster, William Patterson, Misericordia
This year: Thiel, Allegheny, Fredonia, Carnegie-Mellon, Case Western, Alfred State, open
Only four schools advertise themselves as ECAC members, Carnegie, Westminster, Alfred State and William Patterson. Misericordia is also ECAC but doesn't use the logo on their website.
Even if what Coach Niland said is true there are 169 D3 institutions that are ECAC members, admittedly most are several hundred miles East of Behrend, and its not like their schedule is packed tight with ECAC schools.
http://www.ecacsports.com/inside/membership/division_III/index
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
In addition to the conversation on SOS. I spoke with Dave Niland from PS-Behrend a week ago and the topic of SOS came up in regards to Behrend and the AMCC's schedule. He mentioned that a lot of games are already agreed upon games that come up with their affiliation with the ECAC. It sounds like a lot of the schedule is fixed with regional teams from the ECAC and I didn't get the impression that there is a desire to change that mind of thinking.
Really? I have NEVER heard a coach or anyone else reference an affiliation with the ECAC as reasons they have to play certain games. There are breaks in the season (10 days at some point) they have to keep in order to "play" in the "postseason," but never heard of having to play particular teams just because of their affiliation. That is either a cop out or a misunderstanding on someone's part and certainly something I will be now raising as a question.
Let me step back. Again from what I got from the conversation, they have agreements in place with certain teams to play every year that are within close distance to Behrend (for example Carnegie Mellon, Thiel, Allegheny, Westminster) that they play on their schedule every year and have for several years. Coach mentioned having to take those breaks that you mentioned but I don't believe the agreements they have to do with the ECAC affiliation but more to do with the agreements with those coaches in the local area. I was wrong in my first statement and apologize for the confusion.
Looking at their past several schedules now, I notice that a lot of the teams they play OOC are ECAC members (C. Mellon, Westminster, William Patterson, Misericordia, Alfred State) . Again, I am not sure that it's a mandatory agreement because of the league that they play those games or mutually agreed upon games between coaches.
For the third consecutive year, Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will air for 12 hours as the regular season enters the final four weeks. Dave McHugh will chat with coaches, administrators, student-athletes, and others involved in Division III basketball from around the country. Other guests will include those who have Division III roots or appreciate the division and the game along with the student-athletes who play the sport.
Hoopsville will air from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. (and maybe later) on Thursday, February 4 live from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can see what guests are scheduled, get more information, and watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb4
You can also read the press release about the show: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/hoopsville-marathon-2016
Here is the guest list as we speak. All times are Eastern and subject to change. Additional guests to be added if and when necessary:
Time | Guest | School |
10:15am | Connie Tilley | St. Norbert (WBB) - WBCA Center Court |
10:40am | Jamie Purdy | Peidmont (WBB) |
11:00am | Keri Carollo | UW-Whitewater (WBB) - Nat'l Committee Chair |
11:20am | Brent Pollari | Saint Mary's (Minn.) (WBB) |
11:40am | Kent Madsen | No. 21 Wheaton (Ill.) (WBB) |
12:00pm | Russell Loyd | Rose-Hulman (MBB) |
12:20pm | Kevin Broderick | Nazareth (MBB) |
12:40pm | Justin Scott | Arcadia (MBB) |
1:00pm | Sam Hargraves | No. 12 Alma (MBB) |
1:20pm | Lenny Reich | Mount Union (SID) |
1:40pm | Maureen Webster | Clarkson (WBB) |
2:00pm | Betsy Witman | York (Pa.) (WBB) |
2:20pm | Sara Lee | Denison (WBB) |
2:40pm | Klay Kneuppel | Wisconsin Lutheran (MBB) |
3:00pm | Brian Van Haaften | Buena Vista (MBB) - Nat'l Committee Chair |
3:30pm | Sydney Moss | No. 1 Thomas More (WBB) |
3:45pm | Aaron Rousell | Bucknell (WBB) - former Chicago coach |
4:00pm | Tim Shanahan | Staten Island (WBB) |
4:20 | Pat Cunningham | Trinity (Texas) (MBB) - NABC Coach's Corner |
4:50pm | Bubba Smith | Sewanee (MBB) |
5:15pm | Ben Strong | Former Guilford All-American |
5:30pm | Kevin Connors | ESPN SportsCenter Anchor - Ithaca alumnus |
6:00pm | Kristen Dowling | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (WBB) |
6:20pm | Allison Coleman | Sage (WBB) |
6:40pm | Landry Kosmalski | Swarthmore (MBB) |
7:00pm | Dave Niland | No. 23 Penn State-Behrend (MBB) |
7:20pm | Aaron Galletta | Lasell (MBB) |
7:40pm | John Baron | Gwynedd-Mercy (MBB) |
8:00pm | | |
8:20pm | | |
8:40pm | Melissa Hodgdon | Wheaton (Mass.) (WBB) |
9:00pm | G.P. Gromacki | No. 2 Amherst (WBB) |
9:20pm | James Wagner | |
9:40pm | HAPPY HOUR | Free-for-all of calls, tweets, and fun! |
We hope to get at least the full show on a podcast, or several podcast, during the on Friday. You can find it here:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project has begun yet again. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered. If you can not donate, please don't worry about - we understand. At least share the campaign with anyone you think might be interested: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509
Also, if you know any advertisers interested in promoting their company or products on the show, send them our way: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
Thanks!
Two significant losses in the GL region last night
St. Vincent lost to Waynesburg last night 73-64. For ranking purposes that's a significant 6th loss and for the moment puts them behind about a dozen GL teams with better win%. With St. Vincent's pretty poor SOS, pool C chances probably went down the drain last night, at a minimum circling the drain fast.
Good news is it didn't affect their grip on the PAC title with Bethany beating Thomas More, so St. Vincent maintains its 2 game lead.
Mt. St. Joseph also picked up in-region loss #6 last night to Anderson 88-71. With their SOS also below .500 they are likely looking at pool C chances circling the drain.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2016, 01:18:51 PM
Two significant losses in the GL region last night
St. Vincent lost to Waynesburg last night 73-64. For ranking purposes that's a significant 6th loss and for the moment puts them behind about a dozen GL teams with better win%. With St. Vincent's pretty poor SOS, pool C chances probably went down the drain last night, at a minimum circling the drain fast.
Good news is it didn't affect their grip on the PAC title with Bethany beating Thomas More, so St. Vincent maintains its 2 game lead.
Mt. St. Joseph also picked up in-region loss #6 last night to Anderson 88-71. With their SOS also below .500 they are likely looking at pool C chances circling the drain.
Looking at the rest of the region and looking at these two, I think both's Pool C chances are done. I thought they were both done before they lost last night. The good news is that I think St. Vincent is still the heavy favorite to win the conference tournament while the HCAC is going to be a free for all battle royal.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 04, 2016, 01:26:39 PM
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2016, 01:18:51 PM
Two significant losses in the GL region last night
St. Vincent lost to Waynesburg last night 73-64. For ranking purposes that's a significant 6th loss and for the moment puts them behind about a dozen GL teams with better win%. With St. Vincent's pretty poor SOS, pool C chances probably went down the drain last night, at a minimum circling the drain fast.
Good news is it didn't affect their grip on the PAC title with Bethany beating Thomas More, so St. Vincent maintains its 2 game lead.
Mt. St. Joseph also picked up in-region loss #6 last night to Anderson 88-71. With their SOS also below .500 they are likely looking at pool C chances circling the drain.
Looking at the rest of the region and looking at these two, I think both's Pool C chances are done. I thought they were both done before they lost last night. The good news is that I think St. Vincent is still the heavy favorite to win the conference tournament while the HCAC is going to be a free for all battle royal.
Agreed. I don't believe St. Vincent could get their Pool C record above .800 at this point. Not going to get in with a .700s WP and a sub-.500 SOS.
Reminder, which Brian Van Haaften stated on Hoopsville yesterday (and has been stated several times in the past), in the SOS era NO team has received an at-large bid with a sub .500 SOS.
Now, I see a few scenarios this year that could call that tendency and philosophy into question and I hope you heard those on Hoopsville yesterday (don't worry, I am sure they will be repeated if the tendencies continue)... but keep that in mind. NO team with a sub-.500 SOS has ever received an at-large bid on the men's side.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
Reminder, which Brian Van Haaften stated on Hoopsville yesterday (and has been stated several times in the past), in the SOS era NO team has received an at-large bid with a sub .500 SOS.
Now, I see a few scenarios this year that could call that tendency and philosophy into question and I hope you heard those on Hoopsville yesterday (don't worry, I am sure they will be repeated if the tendencies continue)... but keep that in mind. NO team with a sub-.500 SOS has ever received an at-large bid on the men's side.
I'm not sure that's true.
I have 2012 Birmingham-Southern as having a .917 WP and .441 SOS (and, I think, 0-0 vRRO!).
Also I think St. Joseph's (L.I.) had a .470 SOS that same year with an .870 WP and 1-0 vRRO.
2010:
Anderson at .477
MIT at .498 (calc discrepancies could put them over)
2011:
Concordia (Wis.) at .497 (see MIT above)
Penn State-Behrend at .481
Oswego St. at .482
Amherst at .463
Texas-Dallas at .488
I don't see any in 2013-2015.
I'm not sure when we first noticed the NCAA's odd SOS calculation method, so my numbers could be off some in these earlier years, but I'm certain at least one of these ended the year sub-.500 on the SOS. I have no idea if there's a way to confirm these historical numbers.
I can go back and check... but I have had many a chair and others mention that to me. Maybe they are wrong... but it something that has stuck in my head.
Updated thru Sun 2/7
John Carroll 21-0
PSU-Behrend 19-1
Hope 17-1
Ohio Wesleyan 19-2
Marietta 19-2
------------------------.900
Hilbert 18-4
------------------------.800
Alma 16-5
St. Vincent 16-5
Wooster 15-5
Hiram 15-5
Mt. Union 14-5
Mt. St. Joseph 14-6
Trine 14-6
------------------------.700
Pitt-Greensburg 14-7
Grove City 13-7
Bethany 13-7
Wittenberg 13-8
Denison 12-8
Thomas More 12-8
------------------------.600
-----------------------------------.500
Dropped: Dropped Hanover, Manchester, Oberlin and Calvin who reach 9 losses.
Northcoast: OWU and Wooster are still tied with Wooster has the big week a road trip to Hiram and hosting rivals Wittenberg on Saturday
MIAA: Alma and Hope are now tied, Trine gets Hope at home on Wed. and travel to Alma Saturday in two games that will determine their Pool C viability.
OAC: Big week for Marietta as they host Mt. Union on Wed and John Carroll on Saturday.
PAC: St. Vincent leads now by 2 full games over Bethany.
HCAC: MSJ lead down to 1 over Defiance, but have only Hanover remaining as the only true tough game left.
AMCC: PSU-Behrend leads by 2 games in the loss column over Hilbert and Greensburg, and play both the following week. Pitt-Greensburg travels to Hilbert on Saturday
Wednesday Games
Hope at Trine
Wooster at Hiram
Mt. Union at Marietta
Saturday
Trine at Alma
Oberlin at Hiram
Wittenberg at Wooster
Pitt-Greensburg at Hilbert
Grove City at St. Vincent
John Carroll at Marietta
Knightslappy's data is updated through 2/8
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
First official ranking is Wed. I think I would go
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Hope
5. Alma
6. Wooster
7. Mt. Union
8. Trine
9. PSU-Behrend
I think you could make a case for both Alma and Wooster to be ahead of Hope but maybe a weak one, and even a case for Hiram to be in the poll over PSU-Behrend, but I could also see Behrend being as high as #5 or #6.
Those big OAC matchups and Trine's two big games this week should really shake things up, so week 1 is really a rough draft in this region.
per the whole conversation about great records and poor SOS. There are 4 of those types of teams to watch how they're ranked on Wednesday.
NE---Johnson & Wales 19-1 .455
E-----Lancaster Bible 17-0 .421
GL---John Carroll 21-0 .498
GL---PSU-Behrend 18-1 .418
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2016, 12:13:17 AM
Knightslappy's data is updated through 2/8
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
First official ranking is Wed. I think I would go
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Hope
5. Alma
6. Wooster
7. Mt. Union
8. Trine
9. PSU-Behrend
I think you could make a case for both Alma and Wooster to be ahead of Hope but maybe a weak one, and even a case for Hiram to be in the poll over PSU-Behrend, but I could also see Behrend being as high as #5 or #6.
Those big OAC matchups and Trine's two big games this week should really shake things up, so week 1 is really a rough draft in this region.
I think if Marietta can get a split this week and then take care of business on the road next week @Otterbein and @Ohio Northern I will feel pretty comfortable heading into the conference tournament. 22-3 with their SOS should be pretty safe regardless of what happens in the OAC Tournament. That said, I'd love to see them finish 26-2.
Regional Rankings
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2016, 01:29:12 PM
Regional Rankings
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
Knightslappy's new avitar? :)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fmediadrop%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2Fea8e9ff77d5d1332ef85b4eded4b28953aa4f64b.jpg&hash=18eed6125d1f191028df8d2c28b64a59a583b814)
Or rather... http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/10/first-2016-regional-rankings-released-today/
1. John Carroll---lost
2. Marietta---won
3. Ohio Wesleyan--lost
4. Hope---won
5. Alma---won
6. Wooster---lost
7. Mt. Union---lost
8. Hiram--won
9. Trine---lost
PSU-Behrend---lost
Mt. St. Joseph---lost
Hilbert---idle
St. Vincent---won
Fun!
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2016, 12:15:18 AM
1. John Carroll---lost
2. Marietta---won
3. Ohio Wesleyan--lost
4. Hope---won
5. Alma---won
6. Wooster---lost
7. Mt. Union---lost
8. Hiram--won
9. Trine---lost
PSU-Behrend---lost
Mt. St. Joseph---lost
Hilbert---idle
St. Vincent---won
And on Saturday...
Marietta hosts John Carrol, Alma hosts Trine, and Wooster hosts rival Wittenberg... So at least 2 more of these teams will get an L on Saturday.
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2016, 12:31:50 AM
per the whole conversation about great records and poor SOS. There are 4 of those types of teams to watch how they're ranked on Wednesday.
NE---Johnson & Wales 19-1 .455
E-----Lancaster Bible 17-0 .421
GL---John Carroll 21-0 .498
GL---PSU-Behrend 18-1 .418
It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.
I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC or other really good conferences.
Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.
rant over.
would love to here what people think
A given team's strength of conference has a huge influence on that teams' potential SOS.
Additionally, other factors can limit a team's flexibility in increasing their SOS (geography, budget, etc).
That said, the NCAA wants to select the best teams for the tourney (is that a fair assumption??). To select the best teams, you have to evaluate not purely wins, but the quality of those wins.
If they're selecting a 6-7 loss team over a 0-2 loss team like Lancaster or PSU-B, it must be because the evaluation of their criteria and the weightings of said criteria indicate that the 6-7 loss team is a better team.
I'd be interested if anyone has done research on whether WPCT or SOS is more indicative of wins in the NCAA tournament.
I have no inside info, but I would bet that in any NCAA criteria discussions they have made statements like "really, any "win" versus a bottom 100 or 150 D3 team doesn't tell us anything about the winning team"
It's definitely a tough discussion that doesn't arise in major sports, or even in D1 bball. D3 has so much variation between quality of teams.
Good stuff and good explanation. It is a great debate
Yep, I think the NCAA has settled on RPI for D1 selection.
Matt Snyder uses RPI to generate his D3 rankings. http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Now I'm not sure if he's trying to predict the actual D3 tourney field.....but the RPI numbers probably do as good a job as any one stat on ranking all teams based on their D3 resume.
Lancaster Bible is in the 70s
PSU-B is in the 110s
RPI says they are not tourney quality teams.
Again, I'd be fascinated to see how these small conf, 22-2 bad SOS and middling RPI teams have fared against 17-8, great SOS, decent RPI teams, big conf teams in the tournament.
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 11, 2016, 11:48:44 AM
Yep, I think the NCAA has settled on RPI for D1 selection.
Matt Snyder uses RPI to generate his D3 rankings. http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Now I'm not sure if he's trying to predict the actual D3 tourney field.....but the RPI numbers probably do as good a job as any one stat on ranking all teams based on their D3 resume.
Lancaster Bible is in the 70s
PSU-B is in the 110s
RPI says they are not tourney quality teams.
Again, I'd be fascinated to see how these small conf, 22-2 bad SOS and middling RPI teams have fared against 17-8, great SOS, decent RPI teams, big conf teams in the tournament.
My use for RPI is as a quick guide to 'rank' teams with zero thought (or personal bias). It gets us closer than ranking by winning percentage or alphabetical order. It's a good starting place before adjusting for results versus regional rankings, head-to-head, and common opponents.
Went through and added the current RRO's for each team First parenthesis is RRO's with bold being wins, second parenthesis is games remaining not including conference tournaments.
As far as rankable teams in this region, this is pretty much it. I even added Wittenberg and they would be a big long shot even if they won out their regular season. Even if Trine lost again Saturday to Alma I would not be surprised if they remained #9.
Two changes would be compelling and that's Marietta to #1, JCU to #2 (which gets settled tomorrow anyway) and I would look hard at Alma to #4, Hope #5.
1. John Carroll 2-0 (Marietta, Mt. Union) (Marietta, Mt. Union)
2. Marietta 4-1 (Catholic, John Carroll, Wooster, Mt. Union, Mt. Union) (John Carroll)
3. Ohio Wesleyan 4-2 (Alma, Trine, Wooster, Hiram, Wooster, Hiram) (none)
4. Hope 3-1 (Alma, Trine, Alma, Trine) (none)
5. Alma 5-3 (Ohio Wesleyan, Elmhurst, North Central, Texas Lutheran, St. Norbert Hope, Trine, Hope) (Trine)
6. Wooster 2-4 (Ohio Wesleyan, Salisbury, Marietta, Hiram, Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram) (none)
7. Mt. Union 1-4 (North Central, Chicago, John Carroll, Marietta, Marietta) (John Carroll)
8. Hiram 2-2 (Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster) (none)
9. Trine 0-4 (Ohio Wesleyan, Hope, Alma, Hope) (Alma)
PSU-Behrend 0-0 (none) (none)
Mt. St. Joseph 0-1 (Marietta)
Hilbert 0-0 (none) (none)
St. Vincent 1-1 (Marietta, Catholic) (none)
Wittenberg 1-3 (Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram, Wooster,, Ohio Wesleyan) (Wooster, Hiram)
If Trine wants any shot at all at a pool C they really have to win at Alma Saturday.
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2016, 02:05:35 PM
Went through and added the current RRO's for each team First parenthesis is RRO's with bold being wins, second parenthesis is games remaining not including conference tournaments.
As far as rankable teams in this region, this is pretty much it. I even added Wittenberg and they would be a big long shot even if they won out their regular season. Even if Trine lost again Saturday to Alma I would not be surprised if they remained #9.
Two changes would be compelling and that's Marietta to #1, JCU to #2 (which gets settled tomorrow anyway) and I would look hard at Alma to #4, Hope #5.
1. John Carroll 2-0 (Marietta, Mt. Union) (Marietta, Mt. Union)
2. Marietta 4-1 (Catholic, John Carroll, Wooster, Mt. Union, Mt. Union) (John Carroll)
3. Ohio Wesleyan 4-2 (Alma, Trine, Wooster, Hiram, Wooster, Hiram) (none)
4. Hope 3-1 (Alma, Trine, Alma, Trine) (none)
5. Alma 5-3 (Ohio Wesleyan, Elmhurst, North Central, Texas Lutheran, St. Norbert Hope, Trine, Hope) (Trine)
6. Wooster 2-4 (Ohio Wesleyan, Salisbury, Marietta, Hiram, Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram) (none)
7. Mt. Union 1-4 (North Central, Chicago, John Carroll, Marietta, Marietta) (John Carroll)
8. Hiram 2-2 (Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster) (none)
9. Trine 0-4 (Ohio Wesleyan, Hope, Alma, Hope) (Alma)
PSU-Behrend 0-0 (none) (none)
Mt. St. Joseph 0-1 (Marietta)
Hilbert 0-0 (none) (none)
St. Vincent 1-1 (Marietta, Catholic) (none)
Wittenberg 1-3 (Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram, Wooster,, Ohio Wesleyan) (Wooster, Hiram)
For Hope, it will be of great benefit for either Albion or UW LaCrosse to sneak into the rankings at some point. That could help significantly in comparing to John Carroll or OWU.
I would say Albion is a real long shot to ever be ranked with a current 10-9 in-region record. LaCrosse is a maybe but there would have to be some big losses by a couple of Chicago, Aurora, North Central and Carroll with LaCrosse winning out probably.
Heidelberg 87, Mount Union 70
Albion 81, Olivet 66
Penn St Behrend 87, Mt Aloysius 76
Hiram 78, Oberlin 68
Ohio Wesleyan 105, Alleghany 84
Marietta 86, John Carroll 81
UW La Crosse - OW Oshkosh: http://sidearmstats.com/uwlax/mbball/
Trine - Alma: http://www.goalmascots.com/sports/mbkb/2015-16/boxscores/20160213_0uvb.xml
Hope - Adrian: http://livestats.hope.edu/bb/
Wittenberg - Wooster: http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2015-16/boxscores/20160213_vche.xml
Marietta has put their foot on this region. Wow.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
Marietta has put their foot on this region. Wow.
Certainly a surprise to me considering the losses this team took heading into the season between graduation and other issues. I really thought they'd still be a good squad, finish in the top 3 of the OAC and maybe sneak out an at-large bid if they could get to 20 wins. Here they are now at 21-2 and one hand on the OAC title probably sitting on top of the Great Lakes Regional Rankings next week. Heck of a job by Coach VanderWal and crew.
St. Vincent beating Marietta now becomes the most baffling loss of the season.
1. John Carroll---lost--lost
2. Marietta---won--won
3. Ohio Wesleyan--lost--won
4. Hope---won--won
5. Alma---won--won
6. Wooster---lost--won
7. Mt. Union---lost--lost
8. Hiram--won--won
9. Trine---lost--lost
PSU-Behrend---lost--won
Mt. St. Joseph---lost--won
Hilbert---idle--won
St. Vincent---won--lost
Still don't think anyone outside the already ranked nine has the criteria to be ranked next week.
Quote from: sac on February 14, 2016, 02:04:54 AM
St. Vincent beating Marietta now becomes the most baffling loss of the season.
Yes... but in a season like we have with parity... there are hundreds of those games around the country.
Baffling loss is right. It was a bad loss. Marietta "spit the bit" so to speak. The Pioneers had a 7 point lead with a minute to play. Between the inability to get the ball over the division line, and the inability to make free throws down the stretch, St. Vincent was able to tie. Marietta continued to struggle with full court pressure and was unable to convert on the offensive end, and just like that they were on the wrong end of the score.
It should be classified for what it is. A bad, in region loss.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 13, 2016, 10:21:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
Marietta has put their foot on this region. Wow.
Certainly a surprise to me considering the losses this team took heading into the season between graduation and other issues. I really thought they'd still be a good squad, finish in the top 3 of the OAC and maybe sneak out an at-large bid if they could get to 20 wins. Here they are now at 21-2 and one hand on the OAC title probably sitting on top of the Great Lakes Regional Rankings next week. Heck of a job by Coach VanderWal and crew.
Marietta is an outstanding team and they are a joy to watch. As I said in the OAC post, I wish our two schools could play every week this season. The way they defended Linnane was textbook but cannot be easily replicated by other schools because most other schools do not have the talent to execute. Hoping for two more games between these two.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
Marietta has put their foot on this region. Wow.
Listening to your Hoopsville broadcast, Dave. . . .you should have made the drive. These are two outstanding teams.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 15, 2016, 10:46:12 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 13, 2016, 10:21:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
Marietta has put their foot on this region. Wow.
Certainly a surprise to me considering the losses this team took heading into the season between graduation and other issues. I really thought they'd still be a good squad, finish in the top 3 of the OAC and maybe sneak out an at-large bid if they could get to 20 wins. Here they are now at 21-2 and one hand on the OAC title probably sitting on top of the Great Lakes Regional Rankings next week. Heck of a job by Coach VanderWal and crew.
Marietta is an outstanding team and they are a joy to watch. As I said in the OAC post, I wish our two schools could play every week this season. The way they defended Linnane was textbook but cannot be easily replicated by other schools because most other schools do not have the talent to execute. Hoping for two more games between these two.
Appreciate the kind words about Marietta. It's a special group this year that really plays well together as a TEAM. John Carroll is a quality Top 10-15 team in my mind and as long as the wheels don't fall off the wagon for either team here this week, I think we'll see both make the NCAA Tournament this year.
Updated thru Sun 2/14 Bold = SOS over .500
Hope 19-1
Marietta 21-2
John Carroll 21-2
PSU-Behrend 20-2
------------------------.900
Ohio Wesleyan 20-3
Hilbert 20-4
------------------------.800
Alma 18-5
Hiram 17-5
St. Vincent 17-6
Wooster 16-6
------------------------.700
Mt. St. Joseph 15-7
Grove City 15-7
Mt. Union 14-7
Bethany 14-8
Trine 14-8
Thomas More 14-8
Rose-Hulman 14-8
Wittenberg 14-9
Pitt-Greensburg 14-9
Baldwin-Wallace 14-9
Defiance 14-9
Denison 13-9
Thiel
Albion 11-9
------------------------.600
-----------------------------------.500
Northcoast: OWU and Wooster still tied, both should win both games this week. Hiram has two tricky tests with Denison and Wittenberg
MIAA: Alma and Hope remain tied, both have banana peel games in front of them
OAC: Marietta now leads the OAC and finish with two roads games at Otterbein and ONU, John Carroll has to travel to Mt. Union Wed.
PAC: St. Vincent leads by 2 games and needs to find just one win out of trips to Thiel and Thomas More this week. 2nd place Grove City has to play Bethany and Thiel
HCAC: MSJ and Defiance are tied with Rose-Hulman just a game back.
AMCC: PSU-Behrend leads by 1 game and travel to 2nd place Hilbert on Wednesday, followed by a trip to 3rd place Pitt-Greensburg
Wednesday Games
PSU-Behrend at Hilbert
John Carroll at Mt. Union
Alma at Albion
Saturday
PSU-Behrend at Pitt-Greensburg
St. Vincent at Thomas More
Bethany at Grove City
Knightslappy's data is updated through 2/14
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Hope, John Carroll, Alma all look in good position for a "C" if they need it at the moment. Wooster would be on a bubble. After that I think its not a realistic possibility for anyone else. Mt. Union's not totally dead yet but they would need to win out and lose the OAC title game, even then it would be a long shot.
Thinking way ahead........Interesting scenario might be if Hiram wins out and beats Wooster in the NCAC semi-final. Hiram has decent criteria but probably not enough to get selected as an at-large. Wooster might have its bubble burst by that loss leaving the NCAC with just one bid in Ohio Wesleyan.
As far as rankings, with both Trine and Mt. Union losing twice last week the door is open for PSU-Behrend or Mt. St. Joseph to get a good look, but both lost games last week. Outside of last weeks ranked 9, the next most logical teams just don't have better numbers than Trine or Mt. Union.
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2016, 11:58:36 AM
Knightslappy's data is updated through 2/14
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
As far as rankings, with both Trine and Mt. Union losing twice last week the door is open for PSU-Behrend or Mt. St. Joseph to get a good look, but both lost games last week. Outside of last weeks ranked 9, the next most logical teams just don't have better numbers than Trine or Mt. Union.
What about Albion? Would winning out and then losing to Hope in the MIAA tournament championship game put them in the discussion (that would include two wins against Alma)?
That would put them 14-10, a win percentage of .583, no way that gets ranked or they ever make it to the Pool C table.
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2016, 12:18:23 PM
That would put them 14-10, a win percentage of .583, no way that gets ranked or they ever make it to the Pool C table.
I agree with you. However, I think if Albion finishes with a higher RPI than Trine (which they currently have), you should probably leave Trine off the list as well...
I put all the 9 loss teams back on the board. Helps to see all the teams even if many of them have no chance at all of being ranked.
Albion has a nice RPI but D3 doesn't use RPI, they use a convoluted system that uses components of RPI to try and arrive at something that RPI actually is without doing the math.
Using the D3 way, Trine still has better numbers than Albion.
Two interesting things about the chart above
1) Many of the head-to-heads among last weeks ranked teams are season splits, only Marietta over MTU, and Hope/Alma over Trine were sweeps.
2) All of the teams with SOS above .500 are from the NCAC, OAC and MIAA.
Interesting to see that Marietta's RPI of .648 is tied for the highest (Augustana) in the country.
The difference between Hope's and Alma's RPI is paper thin - .004.
Wooster has the 4th-highest SOS on Matt Snyder's nationwide list of 320 teams, behind Emory, North Central, and sub-.500 Methodist, putting the Scots in the top 20 in RPI despite six losses. While that SOS number will drop with three weaker opponents upcoming, I wonder whether it might make the difference of getting a Pool C, even if they fell to Hiram in the NCAC semis?
The other Great Lakes teams with a top-50 SOS are are Alma (22nd), Marietta (29th), and Albion (38th), with Mt Union 58th, but Hiram is 220th and Behrend is 316th, out of 320.
Mt Union lost to Muskingum tonight 83-80, I would say Mt Union's pool c chances are dead.
Remember that results versus regionally ranked opponents becomes a factor this week... so trying to read into what the committee decided last week and use that to base on this week without considering vRRO is basically a fool's errand. Just food for thought.
And I know it has been mentioned prior, but since it was brought up again... D3 (and actually many national committees in the NCAA) don't use RPI... they use another formula called SOS - Strength of Schedule. RPI isn't considered a worthwhile numbers since there isn't as much national cross over and playing as we see in Division I basketball. Thus not as many think the RPI represents the division well. Whether that is true or not is up for debate (we don't have to debate it, I am just mentioning it).
Here's the "slash lines"(win pct./SOS/RRO's) of last weeks ranked teams and the next likely ranking candidates. The RRO's are using last weeks rankings. Should Mt. Union drop out reduce an RRO win for JCU, 2 RRO wins for Marietta, should Trine drop out reduce both Alma and Hope RRO's by two wins.
1. John Carroll 21-2 .913/.524/2-1
2. Marietta 21-2 .913/.561/5-1 (add RRO loss if St. Vincent is ranked, add RRO win if MSJ is ranked)
3. Ohio Wesleyan 20-3 .870/.532/4-2
4. Hope 19-1 .950/.517/3-1
5. Alma 18-5 .783/.567/5-4
6. Wooster 16-6 .727/.576/2-4
7. Mt. Union 14-7 .667/.545/1-5 ---does not count last nights loss to Muskingum
8. Hiram 17-5 .773/.494/2-2
9 Trine 14-8 .636/.538/0-5
St. Vincent 15-7 .682/.476/0-1
PSU-Behrend 19-2 .905/.419/0-0
Hilbert 18-4 .818/.420/0-0
Mt. St. Joseph 15-7 .682/.476/0-1
Wittenberg 14-9 .609/.509/1-4
Baldwin-Wallace 14-9 .609/.510/1-5
Albion 11-9 .555/.550/1-6
Mt. Union and Trine would be in position to drop out of the poll, but I really don't see two obvious teams to replace them. It comes down to taking teams with great records and poor SOS, over teams with ok records and good SOS. I just don't see any of the 7 teams not ranked last week as "yeah they should be ranked teams." :-\
The poll will probably look something like this
1. Marietta for sure
2. JCU or Hope
3. JCU or Hope or OWU
4. Hope or OWU or Alma
5. Hope or Alma
6. Wooster
7. Hiram
8. Trine or St. Vincent or MSJ or PSU-Behrend or Mt. Union
9. Trine or St. Vincent or MSJ or Mt. Union or PSU Behrend
Official rankings
1. Marietta
2. John Carroll
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. Hiram
8. Mt. Union
9. St. Vincent
Not sure if this page is a work in progress, the Great Lakes has been updated but as of 1:15 the date stamp hasn't been changed.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked. So some obvious errors here.
The obvious thing to notice is that they appear to place a very high value on RRO's, not sure I agree Alma's criteria is better than Hope's. Hurray for double counting!!!
I'm shocked that Hope is 5th...I would have made the case that they could have been #2.
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked. So some obvious errors here.
Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?
Just a reminder that Mt. Union lost to Muskingum on Monday, they are now 14-8 and would not have been included in this weeks rankings (probably!). Only data through Sunday counts towards this weeks rankings.
Quote from: Hopester on February 17, 2016, 01:33:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked. So some obvious errors here.
Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?
That is the way it has been in baseball for a few years.
Quote from: EttaFan1 on February 17, 2016, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 17, 2016, 01:33:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked. So some obvious errors here.
Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?
That is the way it has been in baseball for a few years.
It is not once ranked always ranked, but the data sheets are generated before the new rankings and are not updated after the new rankings come out.
Spots 2-5 must be really bunched up right now. Probably not a lot to choose between those teams.
Wednesday night
1. Marietta (def. Otterbein)
2. John Carroll (lost to #8 Mt. Union)
3. Ohio Wesleyan (def. Oberlin)
4. Alma (lost to Albion)
5. Hope (def. Kalamazoo)
6. Wooster (def. Allegheny)
7. Hiram (lost to Denison)
8. Mt. Union (def. #2 John Carroll)
9. St. Vincent (def. Thiel)
Feels like the Regional and National committee's kind of deserved those results.
We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.
Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.
One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2016, 07:36:15 PM
We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.
Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.
One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.
And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors! (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying. And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)
I wouldn't mind an explanation for these two ranking things.
4. Alma 18-5 .783/.556/5-4
5. Hope 19-1 .950/.517/3-1
9. St. Vincent 15-7 .739/.457/1-1
UR Trine 14-8 .636/.522/0-5
In both cases you have one team with a significant win% advantage, and the other with a significant SOS advantage (in the case of Trine even more so). RRO's also are a similar difference with the team with the better SOS having a decent advantage.
Yet we seem to be treating these two comparisons differently?
I'm really at a loss here, I know things changed after last night but this looks like another instance where the criteria isn't being applied the same. Is St. Vincent's one single win back in December over Marietta really enough to be the difference in how the criteria is interpreted? What of St. Vincent's bad losses to Waynesburg and Calvin? Don't those cancel that out?
I don't really understand this.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2016, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2016, 07:36:15 PM
We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.
Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.
One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.
And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors! (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying. And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)
To be honest... it isn't even the NCAA's decision. The NCAA as a whole will do whatever it's membership wants. But each and every year, the national committee chairs for all Division III sports gather and one of the topics they always vote on (after debate) is whether they want to release the date - that vote has always favored not releasing the data.
Yes, the men's committee and others (football for example) have pushed for changing this policy and they have not been successful. What is disappointing is I was under the impression the number of those against it were the majority, but maybe losing ground including the women's committee who were now pushing for public information. That changed apparently this year. The women's committee has said publicly they are against it and it turns out this year's national meeting resulted in a vast majority against releasing the data.
The problem is... they are scared and basing it on fear. They don't want to have coaches coming after them pissed off because they think their team deserved to be in the tournament and think they got screwed. They probably have completely bogus reasons and don't understand the criteria, but that doesn't stop them... and as a result it keeps those committees from wanting to "show their work." Furthermore, from what I have been told, when there are coaching committees like the NABC who work hard to work with the national committee to not only communicate what they think works and why. The NABC also educates the coaches about how it works AND work as a conduit between the coaches and the committee to communicate. The WBCA does not have that relationship, or it is just starting to grow better, and it shows.
Unfortunately, a compromise I was told had traction didn't work out. One idea brought up at the last national meeting was allow whomever wanted to release the rankings to do so... and allow those who don't want to release them not do it as well. It didn't pass for whatever reason. Amazingly, when I ask for reasons for these things I get run arounds from anyone who doesn't want to release the data. Those who do, walk carefully as to not anger those they disagree with.
^^^Yeah, as expected - and totally pathetic. :(
Those who WANT to do the right and open thing bowing to those who are scared s**tless of being open and transparent. And too friggin' stupid to realize that openness is the ONLY effective weapon against coaches who 'think' they got screwed. I was proud to spend a career as an educator. Educators can often cure 'ignorant', but we can't cure 'stupid'. :o
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2016, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2016, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2016, 07:36:15 PM
We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.
Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.
One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.
And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors! (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying. And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)
To be honest... it isn't even the NCAA's decision. The NCAA as a whole will do whatever it's membership wants. But each and every year, the national committee chairs for all Division III sports gather and one of the topics they always vote on (after debate) is whether they want to release the date - that vote has always favored not releasing the data.
Yes, the men's committee and others (football for example) have pushed for changing this policy and they have not been successful. What is disappointing is I was under the impression the number of those against it were the majority, but maybe losing ground including the women's committee who were now pushing for public information. That changed apparently this year. The women's committee has said publicly they are against it and it turns out this year's national meeting resulted in a vast majority against releasing the data.
The problem is... they are scared and basing it on fear. They don't want to have coaches coming after them pissed off because they think their team deserved to be in the tournament and think they got screwed. They probably have completely bogus reasons and don't understand the criteria, but that doesn't stop them... and as a result it keeps those committees from wanting to "show their work." Furthermore, from what I have been told, when there are coaching committees like the NABC who work hard to work with the national committee to not only communicate what they think works and why. The NABC also educates the coaches about how it works AND work as a conduit between the coaches and the committee to communicate. The WBCA does not have that relationship, or it is just starting to grow better, and it shows.
Unfortunately, a compromise I was told had traction didn't work out. One idea brought up at the last national meeting was allow whomever wanted to release the rankings to do so... and allow those who don't want to release them not do it as well. It didn't pass for whatever reason. Amazingly, when I ask for reasons for these things I get run arounds from anyone who doesn't want to release the data. Those who do, walk carefully as to not anger those they disagree with.
Thanks for the background Dave. Help me try and understand one thing: When the committee withholds the rankings, those coaches whose teams don't get in
will still be pissed off,
will still think their team deserved to get in, and
will still think they got screwed. On top of that, the conspiracy theorists among the coaching ranks will assume nefarious reasons for the committee's decisions. So how does the committee think it is benefited by not releasing data? Or, to put the question another way, shouldn't the committee be more scared by
not releasing the data than by releasing it?
oldknight - I wish I could help you, but I can't. Your argument is exactly the same argument I make to those I get into conversations about this topic who are against releasing the data. For some reason, they hind behind the "the tournament proves who was ranked and where" and they feel releasing the data will apparently give coaches information - or they can make up - that will be used against the committee.
The women's committee chair basically said that because vRRO changes so much that releasing the data will only confuse people because apparently they don't understand that. While we can beat a dead horse about how inaccurate that is, what I got from that is she is basically saying coaches don't know what they should be looking at or understand everything and one of those items is vRRO... so instead of dealing with them or educating coaches, they rather just have the tournament speak to the rankings.
I have also gotten the "we don't want to answer questions" argument which I usually figure is a shot at "media" - or us. But that hasn't actually held up considering the ones who are the most dug in don't have as much media. However, when I have that I say the following: releasing the data actually gives me less questions to ask. I point out that I ask many other questions to figure out data points and such before I can even get to my originally intended question. Thus, say six questions instead of releasing the data and regional rankings and leaving me with one question.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2016, 10:27:09 PM
^^^Yeah, as expected - and totally pathetic. :(
Those who WANT to do the right and open thing bowing to those who are scared s**tless of being open and transparent. And too friggin' stupid to realize that openness is the ONLY effective weapon against coaches who 'think' they got screwed. I was proud to spend a career as an educator. Educators can often cure 'ignorant', but we can't cure 'stupid'. :o
I wouldn't say the men's committee is "bowing" to anyone. They are flat out told by the NCAA that because a majority don't want to release the data, they can't do it. The NCAA is operated like a republic or democracy. Nothing gets passed or implemented without member schools approving them. If the majority said they wanted to the data released, then those who don't want to release it would also have no choice but release their data.
As for the rest of it... I don't disagree and I assure you I get the sense that even the management of Division III feels not releasing the data makes any sense... but again, it isn't in their purview to change it.
On Feb 6 Hilbert was 2 full games back of PSU-Behrend, tonight they are AMCC outright Champions.
For the week
1. Marietta Win----Win
2. John Carroll Loss----Win
3. Ohio Wesleyan Win----Win
4. Alma Loss-Win
5. Hope Win----Win
6. Wooster Win----Win
7. Hiram Loss----Win
8. Mt. Union Loss----Win----Win
9. St. Vincent Win----Win
Less exciting Saturday.
So if it seems like I don't like this system you would be correct. As I posted on twitter I hope the regional and national committees take into consideration a team like Wheaton (5-20). That will be Hope's third least valuable game on their schedule, a multiplier adjusted .150 for OWP calculation purposes. That 5-20 team took #6 Hope to double OT and #1 Augustana to overtime. Using Win% is just a terrible way to determine how strong any one single opponent may or may not be. That, is why I can't stand all this number crunching.
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2016, 11:38:16 PM
On Feb 6 Hilbert was 2 full games back of PSU-Behrend, tonight they are AMCC outright Champions.
For the week
1. Marietta Win----Win
2. John Carroll Loss----Win
3. Ohio Wesleyan Win----Win
4. Alma Loss-Win
5. Hope Win----Win
6. Wooster Win----Win
7. Hiram Loss----Win
8. Mt. Union Loss----Win----Win
9. St. Vincent Win----Win
Less exciting Saturday.
So if it seems like I don't like this system you would be correct. As I posted on twitter I hope the regional and national committees take into consideration a team like Wheaton (5-20). That will be Hope's third least valuable game on their schedule, a multiplier adjusted .150 for OWP calculation purposes. That 5-20 team took #6 Hope to double OT and #1 Augustana to overtime. Using Win% is just a terrible way to determine how strong any one single opponent may or may not be. That, is why I can't stand all this number crunching.
It's actually the fifth or sixth most damaging game. Both Olivet and Kalamazoo games hurt more and the neutral site game with Messiah is basically as bad. The way the multiplier is added, it's 'better' to play poor teams at home than at neutral or away sites.
Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:
Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.
Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.
Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.
Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.
A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:
Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.
Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.
Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.
Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.
A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Wooster and Hiram are on a collision course in the NCAC semifinals, so that is maybe a Pool C play-in game?
Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2016, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:
Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.
Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.
Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.
Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.
A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
Wooster and Hiram are on a collision course in the NCAC semifinals, so that is maybe a Pool C play-in game?
Maybe, though Hiram needs the win more than Wooster. If Wooster makes the NCAC final, they're in. If Hiram doesn't they're out. (And Wooster maybe still in even if they don't and Hiram maybe still out even if they do).
I know it runs deeper than HTH, and clearly you know this stuff way better than I do, but it's hard for me to imagine Hiram beating Wooster in the semis (giving them 2 of 3 vs. the Scots), then being left out while Woo gets in.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2016, 07:02:26 PM
I know it runs deeper than HTH, and clearly you know this stuff way better than I do, but it's hard for me to imagine Hiram beating Wooster in the semis (giving them 2 of 3 vs. the Scots), then being left out while Woo gets in.
Difficult to know exactly what the RAC will do, but right now Wooster has the #27 SOS in the country and Hiram has the #226 SOS. There's a big gap to overcome there.
It's tough to get a Pool C berth with an SOS around .500. It's one thing for Hope to do that with a 21-1 regional record, but I can't see Hiram getting a Pool C berth with a 7th loss and a weak SOS.
Ryan Whitnable (Fifth and Putnam) was kind enough to have me on his program to talk about how the GL Region looks from a regional ranking data perspective. I'll shamelessly plug his show here:
http://greatlakesbasketball.podbean.com/e/conference-tournament-previews-matt-snyder-woosters-steve-moore/
As long as the SOS is .500 or above... they have a shot.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2016, 09:17:50 PM
It's tough to get a Pool C berth with an SOS around .500. It's one thing for Hope to do that with a 21-1 regional record, but I can't see Hiram getting a Pool C berth with a 7th loss and a weak SOS.
They really need to make the NCAC Championship game where they'd get the 1.25 multiplier vs OWU. A path of Kenyon, Wooster (neutral), at Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC tournament would boost their SOS over .500 to somewhere in the neighborhood of .516 I think. Comparing nationally that's still probably not going to be enough.
Losing in the semi-finals to Wooster might get them a hair above .500 SOS, like .502
My 2cents on multipliers, not really related to Hiram, is that it should not hurt teams who have won their regular season championships by hosting conference tournament games, but that's what the use of multipliers does. :-\
Per the SOS... people forget that the number is more than just the team and the outcome of the game up ahead. Because it is based on the entire schedule and the opponent's entire schedule, the number is rather dynamic and constantly fluctuating. Sure, a team will have a 1.25 boost, but elsewhere teams they played are winning, losing, playing on the road, at home, etc.
As for the multiplier, it's purpose was to get teams out of their gyms. There are quite a few examples of teams around the country who would pile up wins without ever leaving their gym, including against good teams. Coaches were fed up with this practice and decided to find a way not to reward those teams for the practice. For the most part, it has worked. I have seen those teams get out of their gyms for games (we are obviously talking out of conference games). Yes, I can see how a conference tournament can hurt, but in the grand scheme of things a team hosting a tournament is either already in great shape per their resume that the multiplier isn't going to kill them. Of course, you can find some exceptions like Lancaster Bible or others, but they already had problems with their SOS which even if the two games weren't multiplied wouldn't help. That's my point... I don't think in the long run it hurts or helps a team who is hosting the event considering they already have much of their resume helping them in the first place.
I will say that the criteria gets a thorough look-through after the season. The committee comes together after the dust settles and goes through things with the help of the NCAA. They have also had a chance to talk to coaches around the country who have either expressed displeasure or the like. The committee (or members of) have even chatted with the NABC (they have a great relationship between to the two groups) to see if there are things that need to be tweaked. The SOS certainly is not immune to change as we have seen in the past and every year I know it is discussed again.
I posted these in December........
Quote from: sac on January 03, 2016, 02:00:52 PM
Between the end of non-conference play last year and the end of the season, Hope's SOS dropped about .060, from roughly .620 to .560. That was with a much stronger non-conference schedule full of teams competing for their conference championships and ultimately NCAA invites.
Hope doesn't have that schedule this year and I stand by my thoughts Hope's SOS is going to drop a lot and will not be very good at years end compared to other C candidates. If they get in the tournament it will be because of Pool A or because they'll have an outstanding win% you can't keep out of the tournament.
Quote from: sac on January 02, 2016, 08:49:57 PM
Trine's twitter is reporting the Thunder's 10-1 start is the schools best since 1983-84.
If you're wondering about Pool C. Trine is in much better shape than Hope due to the SOS calculations but neither team is really going to present a great resume to the committee unless we as a league get 3 ranked teams in the region. Alma's criteria is at least pretty decent as they'll have at least 3 wins vs ranked teams from outside the MIAA most likely and a pretty strong SOS. Calvin actually isn't in terrible shape either.
Knightslappy ran his numbers this week:
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html
I actually have Hope with much worse SOS, but since I'm much worth at math we'll go with KS's numbers. I do think Hope's SOS is going to drop quite a bit as the year goes on and should finish around .500 or below which isn't all that great.
...apparently if you're willing to do the math, you can be pretty accurate predicting SOS numbers with a reasonable amount of certainty. :)
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2016, 06:03:40 PM
My 2cents on multipliers, not really related to Hiram, is that it should not hurt teams who have won their regular season championships by hosting conference tournament games, but that's what the use of multipliers does. :-\
The way the multiplier is being calculated teams aren't being "hurt" by playing home games and aren't being "helped" by playing road games. It's just that the relative weight is less for a home game than it is a road game.
So, if your SOS is .500 and you're playing a team who would provide a .550 component SOS, they'll still bring your SOS up if you play them at home, just not as much as if you played them on the road.
Take OWU and JCU two teams that will be compared with each other in Pool C should they lose
If they both lose in their respective conference championship games:
OWU will have 3 games with .750 multiplier
JCU will have 3 games of .750, neutral, 1.25 multiplier.
OWU loses ground on JCU's SOS in that scenario, effectively being punished for being good enough to win their conference and host their conferences semi-final.
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 10:28:16 AM
Take OWU and JCU two teams that will be compared with each other in Pool C should they lose
If they both lose in their respective conference championship games:
OWU will have 3 games with .750 multiplier
JCU will have 3 games of .750, neutral, 1.25 multiplier.
OWU loses ground on JCU's SOS in that scenario, effectively being punished for being good enough to win their conference and host their conferences semi-final.
But also JCU's punishment of not being good enough to win their conference is playing games on the road which are more difficult to win. SOS isn't a reward or punishment, it's supposed to be a measure of how difficult a game is to win.
But let's use your scenario and say they both played teams with the same records in each round, just to keep things simple:
10-14
16-8
20-24
OWU's OWP heading into this week was .528. If they played all these games at home it would move to .538.
JCU's OWP heading into this week was .518. If they played these games as home, neutral, road, it would move to .536.
Both, by playing lots of conference tournament games, would improve their SOS. JCU's would improve more, but not enough to overcome a .010 gap.
---
In the way I think SOS
should be calculated, OWU would get a slight penalty (.523 from .528) while JCU would get the same boost (.536 up from .518). But I don't think that's unfair, necessarily.
Personally, I'd like to see the multipliers more like 1.15 / 0.85 and then be applied correctly, but I the NCAA thinks what they're doing is right for whatever reason.
Remember, the NCAA (and coaches primarily) have changed the SOS in the past. I can't remember the old number, but was it 1.50 and .50?! Anyway... it was shifted to 1.25 and .75. I think another shift is reasonable now that the message has been received to not park yourself at home. Something worth bringing up to be sure.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 11:04:19 AM
Remember, the NCAA (and coaches primarily) have changed the SOS in the past. I can't remember the old number, but was it 1.50 and .50?! Anyway... it was shifted to 1.25 and .75. I think another shift is reasonable now that the message has been received to not park yourself at home. Something worth bringing up to be sure.
The original multipliers were 1.4 / 0.6
I think I did some research in the past to try to determine what the multiplier "should" be, but I'll have to dig it up.
Ah yes... that sounds familiar now.
BTW - should note that this multiplier is not only used by basketball, but other sports including I think one of the volleyballs. If they were to change it for basketball, I think the rest that use it would need to sign off as well.
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Final public regional rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Quote from: Hopester on February 24, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Rough. Time to start planning a road trip for next weekend, I guess...
Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 24, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Rough. Time to start planning a road trip for next weekend, I guess...
Not necessarily...if Marietta and Wooster win conference titles, I expect that Hope would be the second GL team to host. In that scenario, it's not out of the question that an NCAC team might also be at home, giving the region three host sites.
Pretty much the only options for the MIAA rep/reps are going to be Augustana, Benedictine, Marietta (those are locks to host it looks like), OWU/JCU and possibly St. Norbert. You might be able to get Trine somewhere East but no one close enough is in line to host right now. Nobody can get to St. Thomas without a flight.
Technically you can get everyone to Rochester, but that's going through Canada and with passports and all I doubt they'd do that. They have yet to anyway that I can remember.
We'll be pulling teams in from the East so, its much more likely the MIAA rep/reps go West. With so many ranked teams in the GL/Central and West no matter where you go its probably going to be a pretty tough pod.
Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 24, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Rough. Time to start planning a road trip for next weekend, I guess...
Win the AQ and Hope's chances of hosting are 50-50 or better. Worst case for this would be JCU topping Marietta in the OAC and OWU winning the NCAC. That might keep Hope in 4th (and probably out of hosting). Best case would be Marietta winning the OAC and OWU stumbling in the NCAC. That would probably put Hope #2 in the GL and nearly lock up a host spot.
I can see the GL getting three pods, but the Central is probably needing three as well, and the West will take up two. Going to be tough to make that many teams fit. Someone's going to be unhappy about not hosting, and someone who
is hosting is going to get a crap draw. Just the way it works around here.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 24, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Rough. Time to start planning a road trip for next weekend, I guess...
Not necessarily...if Marietta and Wooster win conference titles, I expect that Hope would be the second GL team to host. In that scenario, it's not out of the question that an NCAC team might also be at home, giving the region three host sites.
I think its pretty clear Hope is behind JCU/OWU for good. Nothing is going to happen this week in Hope's criteria to change that.
This national committee is different, but its been pretty standard practice for the last 3 or 4 years to award hosts to each region #1 and #2. No its not out of the question the GL get a 3rd but it would be odd.
The West Region is kind of messy with so many Washington and California schools in the top 4, they need a 2nd host and that's not obvious. It could go anywhere in the Central or Great Lakes.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: Hopester on February 24, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Wow, what a joke. ???
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Updated
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Rough. Time to start planning a road trip for next weekend, I guess...
Win the AQ and Hope's chances of hosting are 50-50 or better. Worst case for this would be JCU topping Marietta in the OAC and OWU winning the NCAC. That might keep Hope in 4th (and probably out of hosting). Best case would be Marietta winning the OAC and OWU stumbling in the NCAC. That would probably put Hope #2 in the GL and nearly lock up a host spot.
I can see the GL getting three pods, but the Central is probably needing three as well, and the West will take up two. Going to be tough to make that many teams fit. Someone's going to be unhappy about not hosting, and someone who is hosting is going to get a crap draw. Just the way it works around here.
Trust me, I've already commenced the heavy palm sweating. Who knows what will come out of that selection show Monday.
Which reminds me, does anyone know what time the Selection Show is Monday? I'd like to book a conference room here at work so I can watch it in peace. ;D
I don't think there's a single Atlantic region team deserving of a host. I could see the East region maybe only getting one. NE often needs a third, but I could see three in the Central and three in the GL as long as they can get teams within 500 miles.
To be blunt... don't expect more than two pods. The committee will try and have two hosts per region - since that is 16 hosts and you need 16 on the Saturday.
It gets complicated when the South, for example, may need an extra (as they did in 2014) with Texas involved. It also gets complicated if say the West needed a third (though, I doubt it this year) with Whitworth stealing a host when they are not ranked as high.
When you start to see third hosts is when the women have priority hosting ... then say a pod that featured a team in another region gets moved to that team when the original host was scrapped. But again, that ends up taking from the other region giving them one ... though it would start to trickle down with other moves.
All things staying even:
- the Northeast will have two hosts
- no reason for the East not to have two (Plattsburgh and Rochester)
- I can't imagine the Mid-Atlantic (CNU and Susquehanna) having two
- the South will be interesting, but expect a Texas host and then it gets interesting if they can pull off a second host (will depend on who gets AQs and such)
- the West will probably be two: Whitworth and St. Thomas
- leaving four bids for the Central and Great Lakes.
If the South doesn't need or can't create a second host (CNU will help alleviate some pressure), that will free up a bid that could come to the Central and Great Lakes.. but also considering the number of teams that may be in the tournament from the northeast (Maryland to New York to Maine), they may need a third host somewhere as well.
Again, I just don't think betting on three hosts in a year where men have priority is something to bank on. In 2014, the GL and Central only had two hosts each (UWW and UWSP were considered West).
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 02:54:25 PM
I don't think there's a single Atlantic region team deserving of a host. I could see the East region maybe only getting one. NE often needs a third, but I could see three in the Central and three in the GL as long as they can get teams within 500 miles.
It isn't how they do it... they do it based on the fact that two from each region is their hope to host. Look at the 2014 bracket as an example: http://static.psbin.com/x/v/c2nubj6x991jbt/2014-mbb-bracket.pdf
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 24, 2016, 02:53:56 PM
Which reminds me, does anyone know what time the Selection Show is Monday? I'd like to book a conference room here at work so I can watch it in peace. ;D
12:30 PM ET for Men
2:30 PM ET for Women
Hope the equipment is updated with it's warranty in case I break it. :)
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 02:49:00 PM
I think its pretty clear Hope is behind JCU/OWU for good. Nothing is going to happen this week in Hope's criteria to change that.
I'm not sure that's true. By RPI those three are in a virtual tie. The committee took the teams that are 3-2 vRRO instead of the team that's 1-1.
Add in a win over Alma and make that number 2-1, that could push them over the top. Especially if either (or both) fall to 3-3.
Something to keep in mind, they don't look at the raw vRRO number.. they really do look at the games themselves, the opponents, where those opponents are ranked, etc. They try and peel as much of that onion as they can.
Trust me when I say, when they also get into secondary criteria - and I am gathering they are going to secondary criteria often - they are diving into as much data as they can to figure out who deserves to be ranked where. While SOS and WL certainly seem to take precedent... my conversations with people end up starting there and then diving into many other places for a case to be made.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 02:54:25 PM
I don't think there's a single Atlantic region team deserving of a host. I could see the East region maybe only getting one. NE often needs a third, but I could see three in the Central and three in the GL as long as they can get teams within 500 miles.
It isn't how they do it... they do it based on the fact that two from each region is their hope to host. Look at the 2014 bracket as an example: http://static.psbin.com/x/v/c2nubj6x991jbt/2014-mbb-bracket.pdf
But they don't always give two to each. A quick look back says the South had three hosts last year and the East had one.
Yes, but I am willing to bet those South region ones have been forced by Texas in the past. That is what I described above. Also with the women having priority last year, it added some wrinkles. That is why I referenced 2014's bracket since it is similar in the fact that the men have priority.
Great Lakes Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--9
OAC--5
MIAA--1
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Probably in line for 2 or 3 this year
The final days of the regular season are here. Results of games across the country are affecting other teams not even playing. How will it all shake out and how does one result affect another?
Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh gives you the insight you need to know how the NCAA Tournament brackets are already taking shape. Dave will talk to many coaches around the country who are looking to lock up automatic bids, securing at-large opportunities, or knowingly playing for the postseason lives. Dave will even make sure you better understand the selection criteria and how something like the Strength of Schedule helps or hurts teams.
Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. You can tune in below.
Guests include (in order of appearance)
- Michele Durand, No. 10 Ohio Northern women's coach
- Fred Richter, DeSales women's coach
- Warren Caruso, Husson men's coach
- Zach Frilen, No. 15 Lancaster Bible men's coach
- Todd Raridon, No. 11 North Central (Ill.) men's coach
- Marcus Kahn (Mary Washington) or Andy Sachs (Salisbury), CAC men's semifinal winner
- Matt Snyder, Strength of Schedule/Numbers guru
You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
And the Hoopsville Fundraising project is in it's closing days as well, but we have not met the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.
Thanks!
Pac Semi's
#4 Thomas More over #2 Bethany
#1 St. Vincent over #7 Westminster
Thomas More at St. Vincent Saturday
OAC
#1 Marietta over #4 Baldwin-Wallace big
#2 John Carroll over #3 Mt. Union
#2 John Carroll at #1 Marietta Saturday, teams split the season series.
What to do with Mt. Union who logs loss number 9? We'll find out in the super-secret invisible rankings on Sunday.
IMO, Mt. Union is dead and buried. If only it were so easy in football! ;D
I think Mt. Union will stay ranked in the region, but their near-zero chance at a Pool C just hit zero.
Mount Union was done for Pool C when they lost to Muskingum
Unbelievable finish for the season for Mount... SMH.
Does a loss to Wooster tonight knock Hiram out of being regionally ranked?
Not an expert, but most of what I've read indicated that Hiram needed to beat Wooster and advance to the nCAC finals to have a slim chance at a Pool C bid. If they lost to the Scots, I'd say their season is likely over.
The good news for the bubble teams is since both Marietta and JCU were mortal locks to make the tourney, there won't be another OAC stealing a bid from someone else. That won't sit well with the Raider fans out there, but there are some people smiling on other campuses.
Quote from: HOPEful on February 26, 2016, 08:10:03 AM
Does a loss to Wooster tonight knock Hiram out of being regionally ranked?
My guess is Hiram will stay regionally ranked regardless. My best guess is that Trine is probably the next team off the list if they ranked another team. Trine would need to get a win over Hope in my mind to get onto the list (which I am assuming you don't want). Another scenario is Trine could use the SOS boost from playing at Hope tonight and jump on the list if St. Vincent lose their conference final. KnightSlappy would be the guy to break those numbers down to know if that was a reasonable guess.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2016, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: HOPEful on February 26, 2016, 08:10:03 AM
Does a loss to Wooster tonight knock Hiram out of being regionally ranked?
My guess is Hiram will stay regionally ranked regardless. My best guess is that Trine is probably the next team off the list if they ranked another team. Trine would need to get a win over Hope in my mind to get onto the list (which I am assuming you don't want). Another scenario is Trine could use the SOS boost from playing at Hope tonight and jump on the list if St. Vincent lose their conference final. KnightSlappy would be the guy to break those numbers down to know if that was a reasonable guess.
Trine or AMCC champ would be the next team to be ranked. Trine would have trouble making that jump. Right now they're 0.667/0.510/0-5 compared to Hiram's 0.760/0.501/2-2. I think the Terriers are on for good.
The best scenario for Trine to get back in the poll was probably St. Vincent losing to Westminster last night, which almost happened. St. Vincent still has their win over Marietta, which is apparently like having a bar of gold in your pocket.
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2016, 09:55:57 AM
St. Vincent still has their win over Marietta, which is apparently like having a bar of gold in your pocket.
:D
scarcity does create value. (and the fact Marietta had a 7 point lead with 45 seconds to go and blew it makes it mind boggling to most Pioneer fans that it even happened).
You have to wonder had that one played out differently if St. Vincent would even be in the regional rankings.
Quote from: EttaFan1 on February 26, 2016, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2016, 09:55:57 AM
St. Vincent still has their win over Marietta, which is apparently like having a bar of gold in your pocket.
:D
scarcity does create value. (and the fact Marietta had a 7 point lead with 45 seconds to go and blew it makes it mind boggling to most Pioneer fans that it even happened).
You have to wonder had that one played out differently if St. Vincent would even be in the regional rankings.
The end of that Marietta-St.Vincent game was so uncharacteristic of how steady Marietta has been with the ball and handling the press all year. I've really tried to blast that one from my memory and hope Marietta has too. Credit St. Vincent though, they didn't give up, pressured Marietta into those mistakes and made the comeback before winning it in OT. A basketball game isn't over until it's over.
One of these years I'll actually buy the manual and read up on these things...
Is the number of ranked teams in a region predetermined? Does the GL always need to be at 9 (not 8, not 10)...
You don't have to buy the manuals... the NCAA puts them out for free. LOL
The regional rankings numbers are pre-determined. The NCAA ranks 15% of eligible teams in a region or a minimum of six by applying the 6.5 teams to 1 championship selection criteria.
Now, that is the men's information. The women have apparently asked for different percentage ranked in some regions... but it is all predetermined.
Quote from: HOPEful on February 26, 2016, 02:43:32 PM
One of these years I'll actually buy the manual and read up on these things...
Is the number of ranked teams in a region predetermined? Does the GL always need to be at 9 (not 8, not 10)...
PDFs of the manuals are free.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-16_PreChamps_DIII_Men_Basketball_20160212.pdf
The number of ranked teams is based on region sized. 15% of the region is ranked (pg 14).
Thank you gents! Now I know...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gameinformer.com%2Fcfs-filesystemfile.ashx%2F__key%2FCommunityServer-Components-ImageFileViewer%2FCommunityServer-Blogs-Components-WeblogFiles-00-00-01-02-18%2F1586.and-knowing-is-half-the-battle.png_2D00_610x0.png&hash=b16b4d34cd096ac195f097f9134d90152c40a068)
The manual states that the host teams must play at 8:00. Is that enforced? Carroll always opted to play at 6:00 in the past for, I assume, the longer rest. Is that new? Not enforced? Waivable?
My crack at the region
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. St. Vincent
8. Hiram
9. Mt. Union
-----------------------
10. Trine
I have to believe the committee will spend a long time this afternoon on that #8 and #9 slots since it could sway rankings at the top of the region a little and potential Pool C ramifications.
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 10:59:07 AM
My crack at the region
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. St. Vincent
8. Hiram
9. Mt. Union
-----------------------
10. Trine
I have to believe the committee will spend a long time this afternoon on that #8 and #9 slots since it could sway rankings at the top of the region a little and potential Pool C ramifications.
In looking at the numbers, I would have Wooster higher than Hope:
* Wooster .741/.563/3-4
* Hope .913/.504/1-1
When the rubber meats the road, the regional committees have to line their Pool C candidates up in order of national Pool C competitiveness. As I interpret the numbers (which i acknowledge is a subjective thing), Wooster would get selected a few rounds earlier than Hope (I have Wooster #9 and Hope #13). Putting Hope higher pushes both candidates down in my opinion.
I say this knowing the Great Lakes committee had Hope higher last week, without much changing. So who knows. Unfortunately we will never see that final ranking.
And bottom line, both Hope and Wooster are safe Pool Cs.
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 10:59:07 AM
My crack at the region
1. John Carroll
2. Marietta
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. St. Vincent
8. Hiram
9. Mt. Union
-----------------------
10. Trine
I have to believe the committee will spend a long time this afternoon on that #8 and #9 slots since it could sway rankings at the top of the region a little and potential Pool C ramifications.
In looking at the numbers, I would have Wooster higher than Hope:
* Wooster .741/.563/3-4
* Hope .913/.504/1-1
When the rubber meats the road, the regional committees have to line their Pool C candidates up in order of national Pool C competitiveness. As I interpret the numbers (which i acknowledge is a subjective thing), Wooster would get selected a few rounds earlier than Hope (I have Wooster #9 and Hope #13). Putting Hope higher pushes both candidates down in my opinion.
I say this knowing the Great Lakes committee had Hope higher last week, without much changing. So who knows. Unfortunately we will never see that final ranking.
And bottom line, both Hope and Wooster are safe Pool Cs.
Color me confused - are you saying (in the phrase I bolded above) that the regional committee needs to somehow rank them differently now then they did the past 3 weeks? Is there some new focus or difference in how they rank them now (for the selection process) than they have been doing all along? I certainly hope that I am simply mis-reading what you are stating there.
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 28, 2016, 02:04:33 PM
Color me confused - are you saying (in the phrase I bolded above) that the regional committee needs to somehow rank them differently now then they did the past 3 weeks? Is there some new focus or difference in how they rank them now (for the selection process) than they have been doing all along? I certainly hope that I am simply mis-reading what you are stating there.
No, I am suggesting they ranked them incorrectly in past weeks in terms of maximizing their region's Pool C chances.
Pitt-Greensburg knocks of Hilbert 76-74 to win the AMCC auto-bid. AMCC has two 20 win teams and neither will make the tournament.
Mt. St. Joseph completes a pretty spectacular late comeback and defeats Rose-Hulman 93-88 in OT to win the HCAC auto-bid. I think but am not sure that is MSJ's first ever NCAA bid.
Great Lakes Conf Tourny Champs
OAC John Carroll
NCAC Denison
MIAA Alma
PAC St. Vincent
AMCC Pitt-Greensburg
HCAC Mt. St. Joseph
Caught a few minutes of Hoopsville, and they claim (maybe via an anonymous source on the regional ranking committee) that the final ranking is OWU #3, Alma #4, Wooster #5, and Hope #6. Of course, if that is the case, the national committee could still override it in Pool C selections, etc.
Listening to hoopsville...
When talking about Hope, it was said they have a 'vanilla' resume and they aren't even considering them for an at-large at this point...
I know many "experts" are saying Hope is safe, but they really didn't help themselves with a poor schedule and their loss to Trine. I won't be relieved until I hear their name called tomorrow. I could see Hope being one of the last names called which may give me a minor heart attack
Sounds like Wooster ended up being ranked higher in the Great Lakes than Hope. I went back and adjusted my stuff to still have Hope in, but down at #17 - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1733989#msg1733989.
Safe to say Hope is a bubble team. They have the lowest SOS (.504) of any team I see getting selected, as well as the least wins vs regionally ranked opponents (1) of that group of 19.
I do think the .913 winning % combined with a .500+ SOS gets Hope in late in the process.
Pat and Dave also put Hope in end near the end. Hope is probably one of the final 3-4 in, but I don't see much drama here...the Flying Dutchmen should be safely in.
From what I learned, the final regional rankings were:
John Carroll
Marietta
Ohio Wesleyan
Alma
Wooster
Hope
St. Vincent
Mount Union
Hiram
There is some evidence to suggest the RAC had Hope above Wooster and it was switched. Of course when the newest round of vRRO was computed after the RAC did it's final vote, that may have been enough for the national committee to make further changes. That is very common.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 01:34:11 AM
From what I learned, the final regional rankings were:
John Carroll
Marietta
Ohio Wesleyan
Alma
Wooster
Hope
St. Vincent
Mount Union
Hiram
There is some evidence to suggest the RAC had Hope above Wooster and it was switched. Of course when the newest round of vRRO was computed after the RAC did it's final vote, that may have been enough for the national committee to make further changes. That is very common.
Based on these rankings, the pairings for the John Carroll don't make sense to me. Why isn't the host playing the lowest-ranked team (Denison) instead of the 3rd ranked team (St Vincent)?
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 29, 2016, 01:01:39 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 01:34:11 AM
From what I learned, the final regional rankings were:
John Carroll
Marietta
Ohio Wesleyan
Alma
Wooster
Hope
St. Vincent
Mount Union
Hiram
There is some evidence to suggest the RAC had Hope above Wooster and it was switched. Of course when the newest round of vRRO was computed after the RAC did it's final vote, that may have been enough for the national committee to make further changes. That is very common.
Based on these rankings, the pairings for the John Carroll don't make sense to me. Why isn't the host playing the lowest-ranked team (Denison) instead of the 3rd ranked team (St Vincent)?
You are correct, that doesn't make sense. Alma v. St. Vincent and John Carroll v. Denison would be better based on seeding.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 29, 2016, 01:01:39 PM
Based on these rankings, the pairings for the John Carroll don't make sense to me. Why isn't the host playing the lowest-ranked team (Denison) instead of the 3rd ranked team (St Vincent)?
I thought that Denison was a strange and wonderful gift for Alma.
Not sure I would agree that Alma got a gift when you notice who Denison had to beat to get the AQ. That also may explain the pairing.
Quote from: realist on February 29, 2016, 01:46:36 PM
Not sure I would agree that Alma got a gift when you notice who Denison had to beat to get the AQ. That also may explain the pairing.
Denison had a great week last week but looking at the full resume of the 4 teams, there is no doubt that Denison has the weakest of the 4. I am curious as to how that got bracketed as well.
I guess the short answer is that the RAC didn't do the pairing/bracketing, the national committee did. That's not a satisfactory answer, so the long answer is that Pat and Dave are going to talk to the committee chair on Hoopsville; if nobody else has, I'll submit this question.
UPDATE: submitted.
FYI - remember the final rankings are ultimately the national committee's job. The RACs are Regional ADVISORY Committees. Ultimately, their job is to advise the national committee who can change them rankings if they don't agree with the assessment of the RAC. Also, the RACs don't have the final vote in the final weekend.
The RACs meet Sunday morning and vote based on the usual data they have. The national committee then make any adjustments if they feel they are necessary. But then, the vRRO numbers are run a final time based on the final regional rankings. The national committee takes a look at these new numbers and make sure the rankings still jive with the information and make another set of changes if need be.
As for parings and bracketing... the RACs never, ever are involved with this process. Not sure they ever have in the past. This is strictly a national committee job.
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Great Lakes Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--9
OAC--5
MIAA--1
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Probably in line for 2 or 3 this year
Pool C's this year: Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope (two years in a row with 4)
10 overall selections for the second consecutive year.
Marietta College set to host the inaugural Great Lakes Invitational in 2017. Should be a fantastic weekend of basketball.
http://pioneers.marietta.edu/news/2016/7/8/marietta-set-to-host-inaugural-great-lakes-invitational-mens-basketball-tournament.aspx
Great job with that, 5th.
Amazed that St. Thomas is going all the way down there. Maybe can get someone from d3sports to finally go down that way :)
Quote from: ElRetornodelEspencio on July 13, 2016, 01:46:59 AM
Great job with that, 5th.
Amazed that St. Thomas is going all the way down there. Maybe can get someone from d3sports to finally go down that way :)
If memory serves me right, Dave went to Marietta for the 2nd round NCAA Tournament game this past season.
Yep... I was there for the second round NCAA game this season. I also toyed with going to the John Carroll game at Marietta this past season, but the plans didn't work out. It is about a 5 1/2 hour drive from my house.
And not sure ElRetornodel why you would be surprised in UST going to Marietta. They went to Stevenson last season for the Hoospville Classic and have been to other far-flung locales as well.
As for D3sports going to the tourament... we shall see... that Hoopsville Classic thing kind of takes up a lot of our staffing. ;) ;D
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 13, 2016, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: ElRetornodelEspencio on July 13, 2016, 01:46:59 AM
Great job with that, 5th.
Amazed that St. Thomas is going all the way down there. Maybe can get someone from d3sports to finally go down that way :)
If memory serves me right, Dave went to Marietta for the 2nd round NCAA Tournament game this past season.
So, the one we weren't in? :)
I'm surprised because I think this might be the furthest anyone has ever come from to play in Marietta.
Stevenson is easy -- MSP to BWI, get a couple of vans to go 20 miles.
Getting to Marietta takes quite a bit more commitment. :)
St. Thomas routinely travels out to the West Coast for games...if you look, they usually like to take a nice long trip almost every year.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on August 02, 2016, 10:12:35 PM
St. Thomas routinely travels out to the West Coast for games...if you look, they usually like to take a nice long trip almost every year.
Again, when you live within throwing distance of a major airport, those trips aren't that hard when the place you're traveling is also close to one.
Jeez I'm trying to give some credit to someone for traveling a long way to come to the hinterlands and apparently this board just isn't having it.
Whatever. The traveling makes up for the traveling they don't have to do to recruit. There, is a snide remark better?
Quote from: ElRetornodelEspencio on August 03, 2016, 03:38:14 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on August 02, 2016, 10:12:35 PM
St. Thomas routinely travels out to the West Coast for games...if you look, they usually like to take a nice long trip almost every year.
Again, when you live within throwing distance of a major airport, those trips aren't that hard when the place you're traveling is also close to one.
Jeez I'm trying to give some credit to someone for traveling a long way to come to the hinterlands and apparently this board just isn't having it.
Whatever. The traveling makes up for the traveling they don't have to do to recruit. There, is a snide remark better?
I was just pointing out that St. Thomas has no fear in making long journeys to play quality basketball games. I agree that getting to Marietta is a bigger challenge to get to as you have to fly into Columbus/Pittsburgh and then hitch a bus for the roughly 2-3 hour journey into town. I did get the idea though that St. Thomas will go anywhere at anytime to play top quality competition.
Big coaching news heading into the season: https://twitter.com/d3hoopsville/status/782958659349389313
Truly an OAC standard bearer like Larry Kehres in football, wish him nothing but the best and will make at least one trip to the East side to see him coach one last time
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2016-17/preseason
Great Lakes teams in the preseason Top 25:
7. Wooster
8. OWU
11. John Carroll
14. Alma
17. Marietta
22. Hope
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on October 31, 2016, 08:26:21 AM
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2016-17/preseason
Great Lakes teams in the preseason Top 25:
7. Wooster
8. OWU
11. John Carroll
14. Alma
17. Marietta
22. Hope
Some big match-ups right off the bat in November...
Friday, Nov. 18th - Augustana @ Alma
Saturday, Nov. 19th - Marietta vs. Christopher Newport @ Stevenson (Hoopsville Tournament)
Wednesday, Nov. 23rd - Wooster @ Marietta
Tuesday, Nov. 29th - Hope @ John Carroll
Also:
Marietta vs. Christopher Newport on Saturday November, 19.
Missed that one! Editted and thanks 5th and Putnam!
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Quote from: sac on December 01, 2016, 02:06:00 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
This is going to be a strange year in the GL based off the first couple of weeks here. On paper, a lot of the teams look really. The results are not panning that out so far. JCU is 1-3, OWU is 2-3, Wooster is 3-2...is this indicative of how their seasons are going to go? No idea. The door is certainly open though for some new teams to rise to the top this year that we have not seen for a little bit...Mount St. Joseph, Denison, Baldwin Wallace, Bethany...going to be really fun to see how the region plays out this year.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fdumpster-fire.jpg&hash=c9175b1bb12f71bbe9bdb83f5d49ec67efafc062)
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fdumpster-fire.jpg&hash=c9175b1bb12f71bbe9bdb83f5d49ec67efafc062)
I thought about it and decided I poked the bear enough over there :)
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fdumpster-fire.jpg&hash=c9175b1bb12f71bbe9bdb83f5d49ec67efafc062)
LOL!
Quote from: sac on December 01, 2016, 02:06:00 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Is it too early for a regional ranking data update!?
Yes. Yes it is. :( (The page is updated, however). :)
Is it wrong that I respond this way?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7aIf1YnbbU
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fdumpster-fire.jpg&hash=c9175b1bb12f71bbe9bdb83f5d49ec67efafc062)
Exactly
(says the guy who hasn't looked at that board since he posted late last night... and was a little angry when he did it...)
Quote from: sac on December 01, 2016, 09:23:24 PM
Is it wrong that I respond this way?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7aIf1YnbbU
Until data says otherwise, I shall refer to Adrian as the #4 team in the Great Lakes Region! ;D
Dec 11, your last Great Lakes unbeaten is Denison.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 02, 2016, 02:04:44 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on December 01, 2016, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on December 01, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Marietta and Hope are the only two teams from last years final Great Lakes poll (super secret one) that don't have 2 or more D3 losses already. :-\
Imagine the further confusion if Baldwin Wallace knocks off Marietta this weekend!
Don't suggest that in the Top 25 message board...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fdumpster-fire.jpg&hash=c9175b1bb12f71bbe9bdb83f5d49ec67efafc062)
Exactly
(says the guy who hasn't looked at that board since he posted late last night... and was a little angry when he did it...)
Classy stuff, folks. I'll try to remember this the next time I'm called a troll by one of you or your sycos.
Funny what a lie this site exposes itself as when someone steps even a bit out of line with the established norm.
Great Lakes teams in Massey's top 150
2. Marietta
10. Hope
38. Denison
51. Baldwin-Wallace
59. John Carroll
64. Hanover
67. Mt. Union
80. Wooster
95. Heidelberg
98. Capital
101. Muskingum
102. Ohio Wesleyan
105. Anderson
114. Ohio Northern
116. Calvin
119. Adrian
142. Wittenberg
147. Trine
Capital 84 Denison 75....and zero undefeated teams left in the Great lakes.
Quote from: sac on December 14, 2016, 09:57:09 PM
Capital 84 Denison 75....and zero undefeated teams left in the Great lakes.
The interesting thing about this game was that Denison led in this one by 21 at one point...a complete turning of the tables and another feather in the cap for the OAC this year.
Taking a stab at Great Lakes rankings if they were this week
1. Denison
2. Mt. St. Joseph
3. Marietta
4. Hope
5. Hanover
6. LaRoche
7. Thomas More
8. Calvin
9. John Carroll
Others: Mt. Union, Anderson, Medaille, Carnegie Mellon
Denison is pretty clear #1, separating 2 through 5 is more difficult, you can make good cases for each, I strictly went by record/SOS leaving head-to-head asside for now. LaRoche has the record but not the SOS, Calvin and Thomas More in the best spot with 4 losses. JCU better SOS than 4 loss Anderson, Medaille and 5 loss Mt. Union/ Carnegie.
Quality wins (those over teams that I ranked or would obviously be ranked in other regions)
Denison --none
Mt. St. Joseph-- John Carroll, Hanover
Marietta -- LaRoche, Christopher-Newport
Hope -- John Carroll, River Falls
Hanover --John Carroll
LaRoche -- none
Thomas More -- Mt. St. Joseph
Calvin -- none
John Carroll -- LaRoche, Marietta
Mt. Union -- none
Anderson -- Mt. St. Joseph
Medaille -- none
Carnegie Mellon -- Brockport St.
This was a quick excercise, I'm open to changes. Some traditionally pretty strong programs sitting on 6 losses already Wooster, OWU, Capital.
Quote from: sac on January 16, 2017, 12:31:02 AM
Taking a stab at Great Lakes rankings if they were this week
1. Denison
2. Mt. St. Joseph
3. Marietta
4. Hope
5. Hanover
6. LaRoche
7. Thomas More
8. Calvin
9. John Carroll
Others: Mt. Union, Anderson, Medaille, Carnegie Mellon
Denison is pretty clear #1, separating 2 through 5 is more difficult, you can make good cases for each, I strictly went by record/SOS leaving head-to-head asside for now. LaRoche has the record but not the SOS, Calvin and Thomas More in the best spot with 4 losses. JCU better SOS than 4 loss Anderson, Medaille and 5 loss Mt. Union/ Carnegie.
Quality wins (those over teams that I ranked or would obviously be ranked in other regions)
Denison --none
Mt. St. Joseph-- John Carroll, Hanover
Marietta -- LaRoche
Hope -- John Carroll, River Falls
Hanover --John Carroll
LaRoche -- none
Thomas More -- Mt. St. Joseph
Calvin -- none
John Carroll -- LaRoche, Marietta
Mt. Union -- none
Anderson -- Mt. St. Joseph
Medaille -- none
Carnegie Mellon -- Brockport St.
This was a quick excercise, I'm open to changes. Some traditionally pretty strong programs sitting on 6 losses already Wooster, OWU, Capital.
I'll take a shot at this too...
1. Denison (not the best SOS and I'm still not completely sold that they're the best team in the region but they're 14-1 and have earned the top spot.)
2. Marietta (SAC I believe we can add Christopher Newport to the list of quality wins here as well)
3. Hope (I like Hope over MSJ at this point, similar D3 records but I like Hope's schedule a little more)
4. MSJ
5. Hanover
6. John Carroll (may still end up being the best team in this region, playing really well right now but still feeling the effects of the sluggish start.)
7. Wooster
8. Calvin
9. Mt. Union
Unfortunately, for La Roche and Thomas More..SOS is going to be a big negative for them. I could see them on here with 1 loss, MAYBE 2 but La Roche has 3 losses and Thomas More 4. The last 3 or 4 could go a lot of directions...Ohio Wesleyan is right there with that group as well. Another thing that could hurt John Carroll is early losses to Hanover and MSJ...that could come back to bite them.
The below numbers don't include this weekend's games, but here are KnightSlappy's Regional rankings numbers
(found at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/))
My question is... with such an awful SOS, is it really a given that Denison is the 1? Massey puts them behind Marietta and Hope and just ahead of Mt. St. Joe.
Rank Team WP SOS RPI D3 vRRO OVR
1 Marietta 0.714 0.619 0.643 10-4 0-0 10-4
2 Mt St Joseph 0.846 0.534 0.612 11-2 0-0 11-3
3 John Carroll 0.615 0.609 0.610 8-5 0-0 8-5
4 Hope 0.750 0.560 0.607 9-3 0-0 10-4
5 Capital 0.643 0.579 0.595 9-5 0-0 9-5
6 Hanover 0.818 0.516 0.591 9-2 0-0 11-2
7 Denison 0.929 0.457 0.575 13-1 0-0 13-1
8 Mt Union 0.643 0.542 0.567 9-5 0-0 9-5
9 La Roche 0.786 0.494 0.567 11-3 0-0 11-3 |
Quote from: HOPEful on January 16, 2017, 08:53:15 AM
The below numbers don't include this weekend's games, but here are KnightSlappy's Regional rankings numbers
(found at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/))
My question is... with such an awful SOS, is it really a given that Denison is the 1? Massey puts them behind Marietta and Hope and just ahead of Mt. St. Joe.
I just updated the sheet.
Interesting to me: Calvin would be flirting with the No. 9 spot in the region by RPI had they managed to beat Millikin. :-[
I do not think Denison would be ranked at the top of the region right now. That SOS is so so bad. Then again, the region is so so bad.
Quote from: HOPEful on January 16, 2017, 08:53:15 AM
The below numbers don't include this weekend's games, but here are KnightSlappy's Regional rankings numbers
(found at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/))
My question is... with such an awful SOS, is it really a given that Denison is the 1? Massey puts them behind Marietta and Hope and just ahead of Mt. St. Joe.
Rank Team WP SOS RPI D3 vRRO OVR
1 Marietta 0.714 0.619 0.643 10-4 0-0 10-4
2 Mt St Joseph 0.846 0.534 0.612 11-2 0-0 11-3
3 John Carroll 0.615 0.609 0.610 8-5 0-0 8-5
4 Hope 0.750 0.560 0.607 9-3 0-0 10-4
5 Capital 0.643 0.579 0.595 9-5 0-0 9-5
6 Hanover 0.818 0.516 0.591 9-2 0-0 11-2
7 Denison 0.929 0.457 0.575 13-1 0-0 13-1
8 Mt Union 0.643 0.542 0.567 9-5 0-0 9-5
9 La Roche 0.786 0.494 0.567 11-3 0-0 11-3 |
Massey does not use the NCAA criteria so you really can't use it to predict regional rankings at all.
The GL RAC really has their work cut out for them this year. They have three weeks of action before they start the official rankings so hopefully some things start to sort themselves out. Nine ranked positions but only four teams currently have a WP over .700 and an SOS over .500 (and one region over Carthage is .714/.604 and not a slam dunk to get ranked in the Central).
I knew Denison's SOS was bad, but I didn't realize it was THAT bad. Yea, I don't think you can put them at #1 considering the SOS. I'd probably slide Marietta up to 1. Still several weeks before this is for real and I am guessing these teams will take some more losses before we get there.
I would quickly go:
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Mt. St. Joseph
4. Hanover
5. Denison
6. John Carroll
7. Mt. Union
8. La Roche
9. Thomas More
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
Massey does not use the NCAA criteria so you really can't use it to predict regional rankings at all.
I'm aware. I was more adding it in there as an additional point of reference to highlight the point that I don't see Denison as the automatic top team in the GL.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
The GL RAC really has their work cut out for them this year. They have three weeks of action before they start the official rankings so hopefully some things start to sort themselves out.
Or it gets muddier! Marietta goes to Columbus on Wednesday and hosts JC on Saturday. Mount St. Joe doesn't play anyone notable until Anderson in February. Can you imagine the mess if Hope loses at calvin next week or Marietta drops one either at Capital or at home to John Carroll?
Quote from: HOPEful on January 16, 2017, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
Massey does not use the NCAA criteria so you really can't use it to predict regional rankings at all.
I'm aware. I was more adding it in there as an additional point of reference to highlight the point that I don't see Denison as the automatic top team in the GL.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
The GL RAC really has their work cut out for them this year. They have three weeks of action before they start the official rankings so hopefully some things start to sort themselves out.
Or it gets muddier! Marietta goes to Columbus on Wednesday and hosts JC on Saturday. Mount St. Joe doesn't play anyone notable until Anderson in February. Can you imagine the mess if Hope loses at Calvin next week or Marietta drops one either at Capital or at home to John Carroll?
Yes. Yes I can. :D
And I'd probably go...
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Mt. St. Joseph
4. John Carroll
5. Hanover
6. Denison
7. Capital
8. Mt. Union
It's so weird seeing an NCAC team having such a low SOS...
The big obvious drag on their schedule is W&J (0-15) in Game #1. Brooklyn and Mt. St. Vincent over the holidays did nothing for them either (combined 6-26).
They have a good win over Ohio Northern...Case Western is so so..not awful but not a great win. Unfortunately, 2-3 games are absolutely killing the SOS.
I remember a few years back we had similar discussion over Marietta's SOS which was dragged down by La Roche who was 1-24 that year.
Denison's current advantage is really a math issue with a midseason number of games. 14-1 now is .933, thats a 200 point gap over Marietta's .733. Lets say both teams win all six of their games over the next 3 weeks. Denison goes to .952, Marietta .810, that gap is now less than 140.
In three weeks Marietta will be alot closer if both teams keep winning, the SOS difference would be easier to overcome that gap.
Marietta also has a head-to-head problem having lost to John Carroll right now. JCU has lost to Hanover, Mt. St. Joseph and Hope. IMO it would be hard to just slot Marietta ahead of Denison given those results. If Marietta beats Capital(who beat Denison) and JCU this next week, then I think its a lot easier to put Marietta ahead of Denison.
Quote from: HOPEful on January 16, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
And I'd probably go...
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Mt. St. Joseph
4. John Carroll
5. Hanover
6. Denison
7. Capital
8. Mt. Union
I don't think you can rank JCU ahead of Hanover right now given Hanover beat JCU and has 3 fewer losses.
Quote from: sac on January 16, 2017, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on January 16, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
And I'd probably go...
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Mt. St. Joseph
4. John Carroll
5. Hanover
6. Denison
7. Capital
8. Mt. Union
I don't think you can rank JCU ahead of Hanover right now given Hanover beat JCU and has 3 fewer losses.
I understand and even to a certain extent agree with this point. However, JCU beat Marietta (my #1 team on the list) and has a chance to go for the season sweep this week. I think the two teams are pretty equal right now with JCU having more opportunities to improve their resume going forward. Losses to both Marietta and Mt. Union and I'd consider dropping JCU off the list entirely. A lot of basketball left to play out! :)
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 16, 2017, 10:52:39 AM
It's so weird seeing an NCAC team having such a low SOS...
The big obvious drag on their schedule is W&J (0-15) in Game #1. Brooklyn and Mt. St. Vincent over the holidays did nothing for them either (combined 6-26).
They have a good win over Ohio Northern...Case Western is so so..not awful but not a great win. Unfortunately, 2-3 games are absolutely killing the SOS.
I remember a few years back we had similar discussion over Marietta's SOS which was dragged down by La Roche who was 1-24 that year.
Don't tell our "favorite poster" that last fact about La Roche... though, he isn't around anymore... he swears that isn't a bad game on their schedule and that I (among others) don't understand why that game has to be scheduled and played (I apparently don't understand how travel and budgets work in Division III, but I digress). He also swears they found a "secret" at Marietta to work around these SOS things, but like everything else he claims... he didn't provide any proof when asked. Considering he lives in Minnesota and doesn't actually have a direct connection to the program... I am guessing he is making things up (shocking, I know).
Anyway... per the SOS, the numbers are hard to trust this time of year when conferences have only gotten in the first of the round-robin at most. Those numbers make some huge swings in the coming two or so weeks, thus why regional rankings tend not to come out earlier as many of us want (though, one more week isn't the end of the world).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
Anyway... per the SOS, the numbers are hard to trust this time of year when conferences have only gotten in the first of the round-robin at most. Those numbers make some huge swings in the coming two or so weeks, thus why regional rankings tend not to come out earlier as many of us want (though, one more week isn't the end of the world).
When the SOS is that bad though, it's a minimum a red flag. When you look at their schedule more closely, OWU, @ Ohio Northern, and @ Wooster are the few wins that stand out. You could argue Hope's wins @Stout, vs. River Falls, @John Carroll, and at home against LaCross are all "better wins"... Same with Marietta's vs. Christopher Newport and at home against Mount Union.
So how much do you "punish" Hope for their losses to Stevens Point, Williams, and Wilkes (Wilkes being the obviously most egregious)... I guess it's subjective interpretation of what you find to be more telling; good wins or bad losses.
Well what did we learn today....
1. Marietta wins over John Carroll and probably solidifies their spot atop the region for now. Carroll with 6 losses now is probably in that danger zone here of falling off the Pool C table unless they can win out until the conference championship game.
2. Hanover keeps rolling knocking off Anderson in the big HCAC showdown and completes the season sweep over the Ravens who have had a pretty good year.
3. La Roche get's dumped twice this week and suddenly everyone is looking up at Medaille in the AMCC. Probably eliminates any chance of seeing a AMCC team in the Regional Rankings.
4. Hope keeps rolling along in the MIAA...we'll see how they handle Calvin on the road Wednesday.
5. I expected St. Vincent to step back this year graduating 8 seniors off last years squad. Nope. They've built a two game cushion in the PAC and are in danger of running away with their 4th straight conference title.
6. Denison dispatches Kenyon and moves to 16-1. 3 straight against Wittenberg, OWU, and Wooster though loom in the next couple of weeks.
There have been enough losses this year, I could see an 8 loss team getting in with an excellent SOS. 8 is usually the max because they never take a team (or haven't yet) below .667 winning percentage - and you often need conference tourney games to get there with 8 losses.
My regional ranking today would look like this, based on a mix of winning percentage and SOS, weighting them similarly to what the committee seems to have done in the past.
1) Marietta (OAC leader) 13-4, 0.608
2) Hanover (HCAC leader) 12-2, 0.530
3) Hope (MIAA leader) 12-3, 0.536
4) John Carroll (Pool C) 10-6, 0.595
5) Mount St. Joseph (Pool C) 13-3, 0.506
6) Denison (NCAC leader) 16-1, 0.445
7) Wooster (Pool C) 11-6, 0.554
8) Mount Union (Pool C) 11-6, 0.551
9) Capital (Pool C) 10-7, 0.569
X) St. Vincent (PrAC leader) 12-4, 0.495
If we were headed into conference tournaments today, only Marietta and Hanover would be safe, with Hope on the bubble without the AQ. I can't recall a team with a sub-.500 SOS getting a Pool C berth recently, so Denison likely would be staying home at 26-2, if they won out except for the NCAC final. Last year's Hope team is a good comparison for Denison; with a 21-2 record and .504 SOS, they were among the last teams selected in Pool C.
In running the numbers as if the season ended today, I had zero GL teams getting a Pool C berth; what a turnaround that would be from last year.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1787145 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1787145)
There are two extra Pool C slots this year that we have not had in past years. Could come into play for someone like a John Carroll if they're really close on the bubble.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 24, 2017, 02:22:20 PM
There are two extra Pool C slots this year that we have not had in past years. Could come into play for someone like a John Carroll if they're really close on the bubble.
Could be true, just glad we get 64 this year. Seems that more than a few folks are planning on those 2 extra Pool C slots helping out their team - but it's still only 2 more slots spread round 8 regions.
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 24, 2017, 02:08:59 PM
My regional ranking today would look like this, based on a mix of winning percentage and SOS, weighting them similarly to what the committee seems to have done in the past.
1) Marietta (OAC leader) 13-4, 0.608
2) Hanover (HCAC leader) 12-2, 0.530
3) Hope (MIAA leader) 12-3, 0.536
4) John Carroll (Pool C) 10-6, 0.595
5) Mount St. Joseph (Pool C) 13-3, 0.506
6) Denison (NCAC leader) 16-1, 0.445
7) Wooster (Pool C) 11-6, 0.554
8) Mount Union (Pool C) 11-6, 0.551
9) Capital (Pool C) 10-7, 0.569
X) St. Vincent (PrAC leader) 12-4, 0.495
If we were headed into conference tournaments today, only Marietta and Hanover would be safe, with Hope on the bubble without the AQ. I can't recall a team with a sub-.500 SOS getting a Pool C berth recently, so Denison likely would be staying home at 26-2, if they won out except for the NCAC final. Last year's Hope team is a good comparison for Denison; with a 21-2 record and .504 SOS, they were among the last teams selected in Pool C.
In running the numbers as if the season ended today, I had zero GL teams getting a Pool C berth; what a turnaround that would be from last year.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1787145 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1787145)
Hope was in a little easier than some of us thought. Here's last years Pool C list that Titan Q put together with where he thought they slotted. All indications I got second hand from someone on the committee was that Hope made it without much difficulty and probably a slot or two higher than here..
2016 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
14. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
15. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4 16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
17. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3
18. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
This was posted earlier today on the Pool C board, I've highlighted the Great Lakes teams.
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 24, 2017, 01:52:57 PM
Through Sunday, Jan. 22, based on knightslappy's numbers posted at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)
43 Pool A berths (current conference leaders)
UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 14-1, 0.606
Babson (NEWMAC NE) 16-1, 0.593
Washington U. (UAA CE) 13-3, 0.620
Whitman (NWC WE) 17-0, 0.541
Tufts (NESCAC NE) 15-2, 0.567
Marietta (OAC GL) 13-4, 0.608
Susquehanna (LAND MA) 14-2, 0.552
Lycoming (MACC MA) 15-2, 0.544
Ramapo (NJAC AT) 16-1, 0.504
Salisbury (CAC MA) 14-3, 0.546
Neumann (CSAC AT) 16-1, 0.499
Hanover (HCAC GL) 12-2, 0.530
Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 13-5, 0.578
St. Lawrence (LL EA) 14-2, 0.517
Augustana (CCIW CE) 14-3, 0.529
Hope (MIAA GL) 12-3, 0.536
St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 11-4, 0.557
Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 13-4, 0.544
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC WE) 11-0, 0.447
Benedictine (NATHC ce) 12-3, 0.514
Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 14-3, 0.503
--- approximate cut line if teams were in Pool C ---
Endicott (CCC ne) 13-4, 0.521
Denison (NCAC GL) 16-1, 0.445
Buena Vista (IIAC WE) 11-6, 0.554
Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 12-5, 0.530
St. Johns (MIAC we) 12-3, 0.493
St. Norbert (MWC ce) 12-3, 0.482
St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 12-4, 0.495
Eastern (MACF AT) 10-7, 0.553
Becker (NECC ne) 10-4, 0.504
Franklin and Marshall (CC ma) 12-5, 0.505
Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 13-5, 0.495
Salem State (MASCAC ne) 11-7, 0.531
Albertus Magnus (GNAC ne) 13-3, 0.455
Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 13-3, 0.450
Husson (NAC ne) 10-5, 0.486
Greensboro (USAC so) 9-5, 0.491
Farmingdale State (SKY at) 11-5, 0.471
Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 12-5, 0.458
Medaille (AMCC gl) 12-4, 0.439
Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 11-4, 0.441
Colorado College (SCAC we) 7-7, 0.514
Birmingham-Southern (SAA so) 9-9, 0.462
21 Pool C guesses (must have WP>=.667 and SOS>=.500)
1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 13-3, 0.628
2) Rochester (UAA EA) 15-1, 0.552
3) Whitworth (NWC WE) 15-2, 0.545
4) UW-Whitewater (WIAC CE) 13-3, 0.567
5) Swarthmore (CC MA) 14-3, 0.556
6) Loras (IIAC WE) 14-4, 0.570
7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 12-4, 0.574
8) Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 15-2, 0.524
9) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 12-4, 0.567
10) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 15-4, 0.551
11) Catholic (LAND MA) 13-4, 0.558
12) Williams (NESCAC NE) 13-5, 0.571
13) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW CE) 12-5, 0.573
14) Emory (UAA SO) 12-4, 0.552
15) Keene State (LEC NE) 12-5, 0.566
16) MIT (NEWMAC NE) 13-4, 0.542
17) WPI (NEWMAC NE) 12-5, 0.559
18) LeTourneau (ASC SO) 13-3, 0.517
19) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 12-3, 0.519
20) St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 12-4, 0.533
21) Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 13-4, 0.525
Leagues with the most teams in: NESCAC 5, WIAC 3, NEWMAC 3, many (including CCIW) with 2.
Pool C berths by region: Northeast 7, Central 3, West 3, Mid-Atlantic 3, South 3, East 1, Atlantic 1, Great Lakes 0
Moving In: Emory (C), Keene State (C), WPI (C), St. Thomas (C), Virginia Wesleyan (C), Randolph-Macon (ODAC), St. Johns (MIAC), Eastern (MACF), Franklin and Marshall (CC), Albertus Magnus (GNAC), Husson (NAC), Medaille (AMCC), Birmingham-Southern (SAA)
Moving Out: UW-Stout (C), UW-Oshkosh (C), Mount St. Joseph (HCAC), North Park (C), Bates (C), Carthage (C), Guilford (ODAC), DeSales (MACF), Castleton (NAC), La Roche (AMCC), Bethel (MIAC), Lasell (GNAC), Centre (SAA)
Wrong side of the bubble
John Carroll (OAC GL) 10-6, 0.595
UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-5, 0.588
Mass-Dartmouth (LEC NE) 11-6, 0.573
Chicago (UAA ce) 10-6, 0.581
UW-Stevens Point (WIAC CE) 9-7, 0.604
UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-7, 0.594
Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 13-3, 0.506
North Park (CCIW ce) 13-4, 0.524
Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 14-3, 0.501
Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 11-6, 0.567
Bates (NESCAC ne) 12-6, 0.559
Carthage (CCIW ce) 10-6, 0.574
Rowan (NJAC AT) 11-7, 0.572
Hamilton (NESCAC ne) 12-4, 0.519
Ripon (MWC ce) 12-3, 0.500
Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 13-4, 0.513
Skidmore (LL EA) 13-5, 0.527
Guilford (ODAC SO) 14-3, 0.488
Wooster (NCAC GL) 11-6, 0.554
Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC we) 11-4, 0.519
DeSales (MACF AT) 11-6, 0.551
Mount Union (OAC GL) 11-6, 0.551
Central (IIAC WE) 9-7, 0.581
Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC ne) 12-6, 0.540
Scranton (LAND MA) 12-5, 0.525
Capital (OAC GL) 10-7, 0.569
Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC we) 8-2, 0.488
Wartburg (IIAC we) 10-6, 0.553
St. Olaf (MIAC WE) 7-8, 0.612
Castleton (NAC ne) 12-4, 0.504
Buffalo State (SUNYAC EA) 10-5, 0.534
Maryville (Tenn.) (USAC SO) 12-3, 0.484
Texas Lutheran (SCAC SO) 11-7, 0.554
New Jersey City (NJAC AT) 15-3, 0.469
SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC ea) 11-6, 0.536
Moravian (LAND MA) 10-5, 0.528
Union (LL EA) 8-6, 0.562
Howard Payne (ASC so) 9-4, 0.516
TCNJ (NJAC at) 13-5, 0.504
SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC ea) 10-7, 0.554
Concordia (Texas) (ASC so) 10-5, 0.524
Hood (MACC ma) 13-5, 0.503
Ohio Northern (OAC gl) 10-7, 0.551
Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC gl) 11-6, 0.527
Hamline (MIAC we) 10-6, 0.534
Western Connecticut (LEC ne) 10-5, 0.518
Misericordia (MACF at) 12-5, 0.503
Johns Hopkins (CC ma) 11-6, 0.525
Delaware Valley (MACF at) 10-7, 0.547
York (Pa.) (CAC ma) 11-6, 0.524
UW-Platteville (WIAC ce) 7-9, 0.602
Here are my thoughts at the moment.
Team (conference/pool) W-L, SOS
1) Marietta (OAC leader) 15-4, 0.601
2) John Carroll (Pool C) 12-6, 0.593
3) Hope (MIAA leader) 14-3, 0.529
4) Hanover (HCAC leader) 13-3, 0.525
5) Mount St. Joseph (Pool C) 15-3, 0.508
6) Wooster (Pool C) 13-6, 0.545
7) Denison (NCAC leader) 17-2, 0.448
8) Ohio Northern (Pool C) 12-7, 0.545
9) Anderson (Pool C) 13-5, 0.493
I think that the committee would likely put Denison a little higher, despite the weak schedule. Marietta and JCU both look like very strong Pool C candidates, Hope and Hanover look solid for now, and MSJ is a bubble team at the moment. The NCAC still looks like a one-bid league, though Wooster might have a chance at a Pool C if they won out except for the conference final, to finish 21-7 with a decent SOS.
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 12:16:11 PM
Here are my thoughts at the moment.
Team (conference/pool) W-L, SOS
1) Marietta (OAC leader) 15-4, 0.601
2) John Carroll (Pool C) 12-6, 0.593
3) Hope (MIAA leader) 14-3, 0.529
4) Hanover (HCAC leader) 13-3, 0.525
5) Mount St. Joseph (Pool C) 15-3, 0.508
6) Wooster (Pool C) 13-6, 0.545
7) Denison (NCAC leader) 17-2, 0.448
8) Ohio Northern (Pool C) 12-7, 0.545
9) Anderson (Pool C) 13-5, 0.493
I think that the committee would likely put Denison a little higher, despite the weak schedule. Marietta and JCU both look like very strong Pool C candidates, Hope and Hanover look solid for now, and MSJ is a bubble team at the moment. The NCAC still looks like a one-bid league, though Wooster might have a chance at a Pool C if they won out except for the conference final, to finish 21-7 with a decent SOS.
JCU over Hope better not happen, or why do we play games. Hope 85 John Carroll 72 ;)
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 12:35:20 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 12:16:11 PM
Here are my thoughts at the moment.
Team (conference/pool) W-L, SOS
1) Marietta (OAC leader) 15-4, 0.601
2) John Carroll (Pool C) 12-6, 0.593
3) Hope (MIAA leader) 14-3, 0.529
4) Hanover (HCAC leader) 13-3, 0.525
5) Mount St. Joseph (Pool C) 15-3, 0.508
6) Wooster (Pool C) 13-6, 0.545
7) Denison (NCAC leader) 17-2, 0.448
8) Ohio Northern (Pool C) 12-7, 0.545
9) Anderson (Pool C) 13-5, 0.493
I think that the committee would likely put Denison a little higher, despite the weak schedule. Marietta and JCU both look like very strong Pool C candidates, Hope and Hanover look solid for now, and MSJ is a bubble team at the moment. The NCAC still looks like a one-bid league, though Wooster might have a chance at a Pool C if they won out except for the conference final, to finish 21-7 with a decent SOS.
JCU over Hope better not happen, or why do we play games. Hope 85 John Carroll 72 ;)
I can't see JCU being ahead of Hope at the moment. It's probably closer than Hope fans want to think it is though. I also want to say the JCU team today looks completely different than the one they played towards the beginning of the year. I still have no answers for what was going on there in November with the Blue Streaks.
With 3 weeks left before conference tournaments (time sure does fly) and only a week out from our first regional rankings, I'll take another shot at this:
1. Marietta
2. Hope (I've watched both Marietta and Hope extensively this year and it's razor thin for me on who's a better squad, both do some things very well and struggle at times in other areas. It would be an amazing second weekend matchup in the tournament should we get there.)
It gets really tough here because teams are bunched close together.
3. John Carroll
4. MSJ (They get the nod for now over Hanover with the head-to-head win)
5. Hanover
6. Denison
7. Wooster
8. Mount Union
9. St. Vincent
JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week. Huge SOS difference.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 01:50:36 PM
JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week. Huge SOS difference.
This is my thinking. All other things (head-to-head, results versus regionally-ranked opponents, etc.) being, that .064 SOS difference between JCU and Hope has been considered equivalent to a 4-game difference in records (4 more wins & 4 fewer losses) in recent years. That being said, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the regional committee has Hope ahead.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 01:50:36 PM
JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week. Huge SOS difference.
Huge difference in record as well, .824 vs .667
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 01:59:40 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 01:50:36 PM
JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week. Huge SOS difference.
This is my thinking. All other things (head-to-head, results versus regionally-ranked opponents, etc.) being, that .064 SOS difference between JCU and Hope has been considered equivalent to a 4-game difference in records (4 more wins & 4 fewer losses) in recent years. That being said, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the regional committee has Hope ahead.
Two wins in a 25 game schedule is .080, and, as we all know, we've been told two wins is approximately equal to a .030 SOS gap.
It's not necessarily the case that .160 WP is equal to .060 SOS but it might be close.
Right now Hope has a 0.157 WP advantage and a .064 SOS deficit with the head-to-head victory. JCU would certainly not be "easily ahead" of Hope right now. I agree with those who think Hope would be placed ahead at the moment. If they're not ahead, it's a very slim margin indeed.
and head-to-head losses by JCU to Mt. St. Joseph and Hanover.
They essentially have 4 losses vs the teams around them in the ranking Hope, Hanover, Mt. St. Joseph, Marietta and one win Marietta. I don't know how you put JCU ahead of any of those teams. You can't ignore head-to-head like that.
I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 05:11:50 PM
I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.
Hanover and MSJ also have head to head wins over John Carroll as well. The Blue Streaks really may end up kicking themselves over the month of November if things don't fall their way down the stretch because they've been about as good any anybody in the region since then.
First 5 games: 1-4 (losses @MSJ, vs. Hanover (neutral court), vs. Hope, @ Muskingum)
Since then: 11-2 (losses @ Ohio Northern and @Marietta)
Goes to show that the games in November count just as much as they do in February.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 30, 2017, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 05:11:50 PM
I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.
Hanover and MSJ also have head to head wins over John Carroll as well. The Blue Streaks really may end up kicking themselves over the month of November if things don't fall their way down the stretch because they've been about as good any anybody in the region since then.
First 5 games: 1-4 (losses @MSJ, vs. Hanover (neutral court), vs. Hope, @ Muskingum)
Since then: 11-2 (losses @ Ohio Northern and @Marietta)
Goes to show that the games in November count just as much as they do in February.
Exactly! LOL
We'll have to see. It all depends on the committee. Hope got dinged pretty good last year for a low SOS. This is considerably better - maybe that will make a difference.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 08:10:48 PM
We'll have to see. It all depends on the committee. Hope got dinged pretty good last year for a low SOS. This is considerably better - maybe that will make a difference.
This year's SOS is far better, though granted numbers are still going to fluctuate quite a bit.
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2017, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.
Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2017, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.
Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.
Your're both missing the point that
at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year. It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2017, 11:48:46 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2017, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.
Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.
Your're both missing the point that at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year. It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)
But I don't agree... I think a .020 difference isn't nearly identical. That is a couple of opponents difference (KnightSlappy could be better at determining that). And it is closer to .030 bench-mark than to being the same. I don't believe it is nearly identical.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 11:52:34 AM
Quote from: sac on January 31, 2017, 11:48:46 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2017, 06:57:54 AM
Quote from: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time. No more than .15 better if even that.
Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.
Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.
Your're both missing the point that at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year. It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)
But I don't agree... I think a .020 difference isn't nearly identical. That is a couple of opponents difference (KnightSlappy could be better at determining that). And it is closer to .030 bench-mark than to being the same. I don't believe it is nearly identical.
Based on their remaining schedule, I am projecting that Hope's SOS will drop only to .524 (from .530) between now and the start of the MIAA tournament. With no quarterfinal game, the tournament may not hurt Hope's SOS too much, either. My thought is that they look quite solid at this point, even with a regular season loss and one in the conference tournament.
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?
Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?
Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.
Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2017, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?
Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.
Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.
I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.
Great Lakes--Conference leaders, Pool C picture (left out PSU-Behrend with a .435 SOS)
Record--team--W%/SOS--Games remaining against other leaders or PoolC's in parenthesis
AMCC
14-5 Medaille .737/.461 (LaRoche 2/4)
15-5 LaRoche .750/.482 (@Medaille 2/4)
HCAC
14-3 Hanover .825/.532 (@MtStJoseph 2/15)
16-3 Mt. St. Joseph .842/.513 (Hanover 2/15)
13-6 Anderson .684/.505
MIAA
Hope 15-3 .833/.528
NCAC
17-3 Denison .850/.460 (Wooster 2/4)
14-6 Wooster .700/.527 (@Denison 2/4, @Ohio Wes. 2/11, Wittenberg 2/18)
14-6 Ohio Wes. .700/.510 (Wooster 2/11, @Wittenberg 2/15)
14-6 Wittenberg .700/.478 (Ohio Wes. 2/15, @Wooster 2/18)
OAC
16-4 Marietta .800/.599 (Ohio No. 2/18)
13-6 John Carroll .686/.590 (Ohio No. 2/11)
13-7 Ohio No. .650/.540 (@John Carroll 2/11, @Marietta 2/18)
PAC
15-4 St. Vincent .784/.467 (@Thomas More 2/15)
13-6 Thomas More .684/.510 (St. Vincent 2/15)
Great Lakes is going to end up with a lot of marginal Pool C teams. :-\
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2017, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2017, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 01, 2017, 12:08:56 PM
The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals. It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket).
I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest). Is that a proper assumption? A "math man", I am not.
The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:
2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61
2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59
2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81
While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?
Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.
Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.
I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.
Eh... then what is the point of the tournament? Here is why I think this matters: the coaches are in control of their schedules. They are in control of who they play out of conference, especially. However, they are not in control of the conference tournaments and they aren't in control of a team tanking and having to now play them three times (in most conferences). I think the WL still matters. If a team gains two wins and a loss, I think that is important. However, a team may suffer in that 2-1 if they played two teams that dragged their SOS down and maybe below .500. Now suddenly that 2-1 matters none. Again, they don't control their opponents in that tournament.
If a team puts together a bad out-of-conference schedule, that is one them. Why are we then punishing them for something they can't control? Sure, they get a W that is easy that you are probably alluding to, but that is handled in the other criteria. It isn't an vRRO and the common opponent will probably not matter. The committee is also smart enough to know who their opponents are and not hurt them... but you can't escaped the SOS going down in that case.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2017, 07:14:38 PM
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
Yes, Denison is in trouble, but I do get a sense this committee is very aware and trying its best to not just automatically kill them for it. We shall see.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2017, 07:14:38 PM
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
I don't think it will. All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below. A little help from semifinal and final. Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.
Wash&Jeff is a huge drag, Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2017, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2017, 01:21:29 PM
I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.
Eh... then what is the point of the tournament? Here is why I think this matters: the coaches are in control of their schedules. They are in control of who they play out of conference, especially. However, they are not in control of the conference tournaments and they aren't in control of a team tanking and having to now play them three times (in most conferences). I think the WL still matters. If a team gains two wins and a loss, I think that is important. However, a team may suffer in that 2-1 if they played two teams that dragged their SOS down and maybe below .500. Now suddenly that 2-1 matters none. Again, they don't control their opponents in that tournament.
If a team puts together a bad out-of-conference schedule, that is one them. Why are we then punishing them for something they can't control? Sure, they get a W that is easy that you are probably alluding to, but that is handled in the other criteria. It isn't an vRRO and the common opponent will probably not matter. The committee is also smart enough to know who their opponents are and not hurt them... but you can't escaped the SOS going down in that case.
The point of the tournament would be a chance to win the AQ.
Does making a win against Amherst count the same as a win against Earlham solve a problem or make it worse?
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2017, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2017, 07:14:38 PM
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
I don't think it will. All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below. A little help from semifinal and final. Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.
Wash&Jeff is a huge drag, Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.
All except one. They host Wooster tomorrow.
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 03, 2017, 09:10:19 AM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2017, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2017, 07:14:38 PM
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
I don't think it will. All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below. A little help from semifinal and final. Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.
Wash&Jeff is a huge drag, Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.
All except one. They host Wooster tomorrow.
In my advancing age I've developed an annoying habit of leaving out words I intended. 'After Saturday' of course. No malice intended.
Quote from: sac on February 03, 2017, 10:10:28 AM
Quote from: ScotsFan on February 03, 2017, 09:10:19 AM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2017, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2017, 07:14:38 PM
I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low. They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.
I don't think it will. All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below. A little help from semifinal and final. Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.
Wash&Jeff is a huge drag, Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.
All except one. They host Wooster tomorrow.
In my advancing age I've developed an annoying habit of leaving out words I intended. 'After Saturday' of course. No malice intended.
Their SOS is so low, I think almost every game they play will help that (remember opponents' opponents' winning percentage is included in that number). Allegheny is the only team left on their schedule that will likely drop their SOS at all. Still, it's going to be tough to get to .500.
The regional rankings next week will be really telling, since the NJAC is having SOS trouble, too. Will teams from traditionally strong conferences be forgiven for bad schedules? We'll see.
I think Denison just had bad luck with scheduling. With the NCAC being mediocre in the bottom, it doesn't help them. Denison's non-conference seems to be in line with what they usually played, and when they were around . 500 it didn't really matter.
I know there's criteria, but sometimes you can do all you can and it just happens that the SOS is a drag.
Great Lakes--Conference leaders, Pool C picture
Record--team--W%/SOS--Games remaining against other leaders or PoolC's in parenthesis
AMCC
15-5 Medaille .750/.469
15-6 LaRoche .714/.494
HCAC
15-3 Hanover .833/.524 (@MtStJoseph 2/15)
17-3 Mt. St. Joseph .850/.515 (Hanover 2/15)
14-6 Anderson .700/.500
MIAA
16-3 Hope .842/.530
NCAC
17-4 Denison .810/.470
15-6 Wooster .700/.540 ( @Ohio Wes. 2/11, Wittenberg 2/18)
15-6 Ohio Wes. .714/.501 (Wooster 2/11, @Wittenberg 2/15)
15-6 Wittenberg .714/.465 (Ohio Wes. 2/15, @Wooster 2/18)
OAC
17-4 Marietta .810/.591 (Ohio No. 2/18)
14-6 John Carroll .700/.580 (Ohio No. 2/11)
14-7 Ohio No. .667/.539 (@John Carroll 2/11, @Marietta 2/18)
PAC
16-4 St. Vincent .800/.464 (@Thomas More 2/15)
14-6 Thomas More .700/.503 (St. Vincent 2/15)
This is pretty much the data used for this Wed's ranking.
My total stab at a ranking might be:
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Hanover
4. Mt. St. Joseph
5. John Carroll
6. Wooster
7. Denison
8. Ohio Wesleyan
9. St. Vincent
Wooster-Denison is really close I could go either way and be content. Slots 8 and 9 are pretty difficult which is looking at either low SOS or under .700 records. ONU wouldn't be a bad choice, better if they win twice twice next week.
Slots 8 and 9 aren't going to have much of a Pool C chance but who gets slotted there will impact rankings ahead of them. JCU would really like an OAC team in one of those slots for the RRO's, Wooster-Denison would like an NCAC, Hanover-Mt St. Joe would love to see Anderson there.
Quote from: sac on February 05, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
My total stab at a ranking might be:
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Hanover
4. Mt. St. Joseph
5. John Carroll
6. Wooster
7. Denison
8. Ohio Wesleyan
9. St. Vincent
Wooster-Denison is really close I could go either way and be content. Slots 8 and 9 are pretty difficult which is looking at either low SOS or under .700 records. ONU wouldn't be a bad choice, better if they win twice twice next week.
Slots 8 and 9 aren't going to have much of a Pool C chance but who gets slotted there will impact rankings ahead of them. JCU would really like an OAC team in one of those slots for the RRO's, Wooster-Denison would like an NCAC, Hanover-Mt St. Joe would love to see Anderson there.
At this point, I would say
1) Marietta (17-4, .591) - easily #1
2-5) In some order, Hope (16-3, .530), Hanover (15-3, .524), MSJ (17-3, .515), JCU (14-6, .580) - not sure where JCU lands
6) Wooster (15-7, .540) - ahead of Denison because the .070 SOS difference
7) Denison (17-4, .470)
8) Ohio Northern (14-7, .539) - SOS is far better than any other contender
9) St Vincent (16-4, .464) has numbers that look a lot like those of Denison
I could easily see OWU (15-6, .501), Thomas More (14-6, .503), Anderson (14-6, .500), or LaRoche (15-6, .494) as #9 instead.
The top 5 look like strong Pool C candidates, with Wooster on the fringe of bubble contention.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 05, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 05, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
My total stab at a ranking might be:
1. Marietta
2. Hope
3. Hanover
4. Mt. St. Joseph
5. John Carroll
6. Wooster
7. Denison
8. Ohio Wesleyan
9. St. Vincent
Wooster-Denison is really close I could go either way and be content. Slots 8 and 9 are pretty difficult which is looking at either low SOS or under .700 records. ONU wouldn't be a bad choice, better if they win twice twice next week.
Slots 8 and 9 aren't going to have much of a Pool C chance but who gets slotted there will impact rankings ahead of them. JCU would really like an OAC team in one of those slots for the RRO's, Wooster-Denison would like an NCAC, Hanover-Mt St. Joe would love to see Anderson there.
At this point, I would say
1) Marietta (17-4, .591) - easily #1
2-5) In some order, Hope (16-3, .530), Hanover (15-3, .524), MSJ (17-3, .515), JCU (14-6, .580) - not sure where JCU lands
6) Wooster (15-7, .540) - ahead of Denison because the .070 SOS difference
7) Denison (17-4, .470)
8) Ohio Northern (14-7, .539) - SOS is far better than any other contender
9) St Vincent (16-4, .464) has numbers that look a lot like those of Denison
I could easily see OWU (15-6, .501), Thomas More (14-6, .503), Anderson (14-6, .500), or LaRoche (15-6, .494) as #9 instead.
The top 5 look like strong Pool C candidates, with Wooster on the fringe of bubble contention.
I think you could make a good argument for Denison to be 8th or even 9th. Using the previous discussion of "converting SOS differences to W-L", you could argue both Ohio Wesleyan and Ohio Northern should be ranked ahead of them.
Official
GREAT LAKES
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 17-4 17-4
2 Hope 16-3 17-4
3 Mt. St. Joseph 17-3 17-4
4 Hanover 15-3 17-3
5 John Carroll 14-6 14-6
6 Wooster 15-6 15-6
7 Ohio Northern 14-7 14-7
8 Ohio Wesleyan 15-6 15-6
9 Denison 17-4 17-4
All the rankings
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
I have been experimenting with simulating all future games (including conference tournaments) and mock selections. This is still in a rough form, but here's what I have on the GL region at the moment, ranked by bid probability if in Pool C. Raw data is from Ken Massey's site, so the school names are in his format, for now.
Team (W-L, SOS, conf record) NCAA berth probability & breakdown
1) Marietta (18-4, 0.589, OAC 13-2) 99% (40% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
2) Hope (17-3, 0.533, MIAA 11-0) 99% (74% AQ, or 97% if in Pool C)
3) Hanover (16-3, 0.521, HCAC 13-2) 92% (40% AQ, or 87% if in Pool C)
4) Mt_St_Joseph (16-4, 0.517, HCAC 12-3) 79% (35% AQ, or 68% if in Pool C)
5) John_Carroll (15-6, 0.569, OAC 12-3) 77% (27% AQ, or 68% if in Pool C)
6) Wooster (16-6, 0.535, NCAC 13-2) 53% (35% AQ, or 28% if in Pool C)
7) Denison (18-4, 0.465, NCAC 12-3) 21% (16% AQ, or 6% if in Pool C)
8) Anderson_IN (15-6, 0.496, HCAC 12-3) 19% (15% AQ, or 4% if in Pool C)
9) Medaille (16-5, 0.477, AMCC 13-2) 53% (52% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
Others...
Ohio_Wesleyan (16-6, 0.497, NCAC 13-2) 31% (30% AQ, or 1% if in Pool C)
Ohio_Northern (15-7, 0.538, OAC 13-2) 29% (26% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
PSU-Behrend (16-6, 0.452, AMCC 11-4) 22% (22% AQ)
Wittenberg (16-6, 0.457, NCAC 10-5) 18% (18% AQ)
La_Roche (15-7, 0.501, AMCC 11-4) 12% (11% AQ, or 1% if in Pool C)
Alma (11-11, 0.515, MIAA 7-4) 11% (11% AQ)
Calvin (11-8, 0.494, MIAA 7-4) 8% (8% AQ)
Hilbert (13-9, 0.458, AMCC 9-6) 7% (7% AQ)
Transylvania (13-8, 0.526, HCAC 9-6) 7% (7% AQ)
PSU-Altoona (12-9, 0.438, AMCC 11-4) 6% (6% AQ)
Trine (10-11, 0.504, MIAA 6-5) 6% (6% AQ)
Mt_Union (13-9, 0.556, OAC 8-7) 3% (3% AQ)
Rose-Hulman (11-11, 0.504, HCAC 9-6) 3% (3% AQ)
Pitt-Bradford (11-10, 0.431, AMCC 9-6) 2% (2% AQ)
My guess at this week's regional rankings. I think that #3-5 could be in any order, and so could #6-8. No one really deserves the #9 spot, so I left ONU there after a close loss on the road to a quality opponent.
1) Marietta (19-4, 0.580, 3-4, LW#1)
2) Hope (18-3, 0.525, 2-1, LW #2)
3) Hanover (17-3, 0.514, 1-2, LW #4)
4) John Carroll (16-6, 0.571, 2-5, LW #5, W vs ONU)
5) Mt St Joseph (17-4, 0.513, 2-0, LW #3, L at Transylvania)
6) Wooster (16-7, 0.543, 3-5, LW #6, L at Ohio Wesleyan)
7) Ohio Wesleyan (17-6, 0.503, 2-4, LW #8, W vs Wooster)
8) Denison (19-4, 0.460, 3-2, LW #9)
9) Ohio Northern (15-8, 0.545, 2-3, LW #7, lost at John Carroll)
St Vincent (17-5, 0.476, 1-0, L at Bethany)
Thomas More (15-6, 0.496, 1-0)
Anderson (IN) (16-6, 0.495, 1-3)
So back in 2014, Hope hosted Wheaton even though everyone seemed to think that Wheaton was more deserving (Hope lost to Penn St. Behrend) and the best reason for doing so seemed to be the Hope finished 2nd in the Great Lakes region.
Is this an actual thing? Does number 2 in the GL have significant weight when it comes to hosting that first weekend?
#1 and #2 from each region hosting is believed to have held mostly true the last 3 or 4 years, with deference to women's programs a couple of times. (St. Thomas)
Women have priority for round 1 and 2 in odd years. The Hope women are currently 4th in their region and probably out of hosting position. So yes, at the moment Hope's men are probably in a position to host the 1st and 2nd round.
As we've seen in the recent past that can change pretty easily.
Last year the Chair said publicly they gave hosting duties to the 16 best teams on their list regardless of region. That ended up being the top 2 from 6 of the 8 regions and the 3rd in two of them. I imagine that it would be tough to not give a #1 in each region a chance to host, but we might see that happen if the Atlantic or South have a weak #1.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2017, 02:26:46 PM
Last year the Chair said publicly they gave hosting duties to the 16 best teams on their list regardless of region. That ended up being the top 2 from 6 of the 8 regions and the 3rd in two of them. I imagine that it would be tough to not give a #1 in each region a chance to host, but we might see that happen if the Atlantic or South have a weak #1.
I think that geography forces things a bit on this issue. Both Whitman and Whitworth may deserve to host, but are there enough tournament teams within driving distance to have pods in both Walla Walla and Portland? I suspect that the ASC champ will host, even if they aren't close to the top 16 nationally.
The strong Central region will likely get 3 hosts (Wash U. plus two WIAC schools), so for geographic reasons, that probably means Hope will host from the GL, along with Marietta. The Northeast should get three (Babson plus two NESCAC teams) but may deserve even more. Maybe three from the Mid-Atlantic (Susquehanna, Salisbury, Christopher Newport), but only Rochester in the East, and only either Neumann or Ramapo in the Atlantic?
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2017, 02:26:46 PM
Last year the Chair said publicly they gave hosting duties to the 16 best teams on their list regardless of region. That ended up being the top 2 from 6 of the 8 regions and the 3rd in two of them. I imagine that it would be tough to not give a #1 in each region a chance to host, but we might see that happen if the Atlantic or South have a weak #1.
I think that geography forces things a bit on this issue. Both Whitman and Whitworth may deserve to host, but are there enough tournament teams within driving distance to have pods in both Walla Walla and Portland? I suspect that the ASC champ will host, even if they aren't close to the top 16 nationally.
The strong Central region will likely get 3 hosts (Wash U. plus two WIAC schools), so for geographic reasons, that probably means Hope will host from the GL, along with Marietta. The Northeast should get three (Babson plus two NESCAC teams) but may deserve even more. Maybe three from the Mid-Atlantic (Susquehanna, Salisbury, Christopher Newport), but only Rochester in the East, and only either Neumann or Ramapo in the Atlantic?
Remember, with no byes this year... anything is possible. I do not think the committee will allow Whitman and Whitworth BOTH to host and I don't think Whitworth will be allowed to be shipped elsewhere. However, there is a distinct chance that if only two Texas schools get in (assuming the SCAC champ is from Texas and not Colorado), they could BOTH be shipped somewhere else. You have to fly two teams to the Northwest, you have to fly the SCIAC champ somwhere, and you may be able to fly both Texas schools somewhere. And yes, there is a chance they park the two Texas schools for the same reason as the Northwest, though you STILL have to fly two teams to Texas, two teams to the NW, and the SCIAC team out. This actually makes for some interesting ideas... and I think last year showed the NCAA has loosened the purse strings a little and allowed for some more national feel. That's thanks to the Division III schools now paying more dues and a new contract with Turner/CBS bringing more money. I am not saying there will absolutely be more flights, but there is a better chance now than two or three years ago.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2017, 02:26:46 PM
Last year the Chair said publicly they gave hosting duties to the 16 best teams on their list regardless of region. That ended up being the top 2 from 6 of the 8 regions and the 3rd in two of them. I imagine that it would be tough to not give a #1 in each region a chance to host, but we might see that happen if the Atlantic or South have a weak #1.
I think that geography forces things a bit on this issue. Both Whitman and Whitworth may deserve to host, but are there enough tournament teams within driving distance to have pods in both Walla Walla and Portland? I suspect that the ASC champ will host, even if they aren't close to the top 16 nationally.
The strong Central region will likely get 3 hosts (Wash U. plus two WIAC schools), so for geographic reasons, that probably means Hope will host from the GL, along with Marietta. The Northeast should get three (Babson plus two NESCAC teams) but may deserve even more. Maybe three from the Mid-Atlantic (Susquehanna, Salisbury, Christopher Newport), but only Rochester in the East, and only either Neumann or Ramapo in the Atlantic?
Remember, with no byes this year... anything is possible. I do not think the committee will allow Whitman and Whitworth BOTH to host and I don't think Whitworth will be allowed to be shipped elsewhere. However, there is a distinct chance that if only two Texas schools get in (assuming the SCAC champ is from Texas and not Colorado), they could BOTH be shipped somewhere else. You have to fly two teams to the Northwest, you have to fly the SCIAC champ somwhere, and you may be able to fly both Texas schools somewhere. And yes, there is a chance they park the two Texas schools for the same reason as the Northwest, though you STILL have to fly two teams to Texas, two teams to the NW, and the SCIAC team out. This actually makes for some interesting ideas... and I think last year showed the NCAA has loosened the purse strings a little and allowed for some more national feel. That's thanks to the Division III schools now paying more dues and a new contract with Turner/CBS bringing more money. I am not saying there will absolutely be more flights, but there is a better chance now than two or three years ago.
There's also a chance, if Rhodes hosts, that one of the Texas teams can drive there, which would pretty much guarantee them a host. We're still probably going to get the SCIAC champ and someone from Texas at Whitman, but the other ASC/SCAC school has a lot more options this year.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2017, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2017, 02:26:46 PM
Last year the Chair said publicly they gave hosting duties to the 16 best teams on their list regardless of region. That ended up being the top 2 from 6 of the 8 regions and the 3rd in two of them. I imagine that it would be tough to not give a #1 in each region a chance to host, but we might see that happen if the Atlantic or South have a weak #1.
I think that geography forces things a bit on this issue. Both Whitman and Whitworth may deserve to host, but are there enough tournament teams within driving distance to have pods in both Walla Walla and Portland? I suspect that the ASC champ will host, even if they aren't close to the top 16 nationally.
The strong Central region will likely get 3 hosts (Wash U. plus two WIAC schools), so for geographic reasons, that probably means Hope will host from the GL, along with Marietta. The Northeast should get three (Babson plus two NESCAC teams) but may deserve even more. Maybe three from the Mid-Atlantic (Susquehanna, Salisbury, Christopher Newport), but only Rochester in the East, and only either Neumann or Ramapo in the Atlantic?
Remember, with no byes this year... anything is possible. I do not think the committee will allow Whitman and Whitworth BOTH to host and I don't think Whitworth will be allowed to be shipped elsewhere. However, there is a distinct chance that if only two Texas schools get in (assuming the SCAC champ is from Texas and not Colorado), they could BOTH be shipped somewhere else. You have to fly two teams to the Northwest, you have to fly the SCIAC champ somwhere, and you may be able to fly both Texas schools somewhere. And yes, there is a chance they park the two Texas schools for the same reason as the Northwest, though you STILL have to fly two teams to Texas, two teams to the NW, and the SCIAC team out. This actually makes for some interesting ideas... and I think last year showed the NCAA has loosened the purse strings a little and allowed for some more national feel. That's thanks to the Division III schools now paying more dues and a new contract with Turner/CBS bringing more money. I am not saying there will absolutely be more flights, but there is a better chance now than two or three years ago.
There's also a chance, if Rhodes hosts, that one of the Texas teams can drive there, which would pretty much guarantee them a host. We're still probably going to get the SCIAC champ and someone from Texas at Whitman, but the other ASC/SCAC school has a lot more options this year.
Rhodes isn't ranked in the South Region, and with a record that's currently 13-10 it doesn't strike me as likely that the Lynx will be hosting anything in the D3 tourney. But both Memphis (the hometown of Rhodes) and Conway, AR (the hometown of SAA third-place Hendrix) are within the 500-mile limit of Longview, TX, home of LeTourneau. There are currently three Texas-based teams that are ranked in the South Region (#2 Concordia TX, #3 Hardin-Simmons, and #5 LeTourneau), so if either Rhodes or Hendrix wins the SAA's postseason tourney it's possible that there could be a self-contained (i.e., no flights necessary) pod based in Texas, as long as it's at LeTourneau.
That would simplify things greatly for the committee, as it could then give Whitman the pod-hosting privilege that the Blues deserve while only requiring two flights into Walla Walla -- one, naturally, being the SCIAC tourney champ and the other being whatever hapless team from elsewhere in the country gets potluck, probably one of the small army of NESCAC at-larges -- that would constitute the only two flights that the NCAA would have to pay for in the tourney's opening weekend.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 12:09:17 PM
That would simplify things greatly for the committee, as it could then give Whitman the pod-hosting privilege that the Blues deserve while only requiring two flights into Walla Walla -- one, naturally, being the SCIAC tourney champ and the other being whatever hapless team from elsewhere in the country gets potluck, probably one of the small army of NESCAC at-larges -- that would constitute the only two flights that the NCAA would have to pay for in the tourney's opening weekend.
It would be wonderful if the NCAA would approve an extra couple flights in this case to even out those two pods, otherwise they're pretty easily be the softest and toughest four-team groupings of the first weekend.
A NESCAC at-large would be unreasonable punishment for Whitman. If they're going to make them host a pod with Whitworth and CMS (who is probably better than their selection numbers indicate) they should get one of the lowest ranked Pool A teams to fly in.
Sending Whitworth to Texas and the ASC No. 2 to Walla Walla would make for a reasonable pods. But, alas, that would require four flights instead of two.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 12:09:17 PM
That would simplify things greatly for the committee, as it could then give Whitman the pod-hosting privilege that the Blues deserve while only requiring two flights into Walla Walla -- one, naturally, being the SCIAC tourney champ and the other being whatever hapless team from elsewhere in the country gets potluck, probably one of the small army of NESCAC at-larges -- that would constitute the only two flights that the NCAA would have to pay for in the tourney's opening weekend.
It would be wonderful if the NCAA would approve an extra couple flights in this case to even out those two pods, otherwise they're pretty easily be the softest and toughest four-team groupings of the first weekend.
A NESCAC at-large would be unreasonable punishment for Whitman. If they're going to make them host a pod with Whitworth and CMS (who is probably better than their selection numbers indicate) they should get one of the lowest ranked Pool A teams to fly in.
Sending Whitworth to Texas and the ASC No. 2 to Walla Walla would make for a reasonable pods. But, alas, that would require four flights instead of two.
Remember... they don't have to send CMS to the Northwest. The women showed they can send the California schools elsewhere like Texaas. Two teams have to go to the Northwest... they can decided who they want with FAR more flexibility now. In the past, SCIAC teams to the Northwest made sense because of travel and whoever won Thursday had to get to a place easily Friday for a Saturday game... but with pods across the board... SCIAC team can go anywhere.
Per the Texas schools... if Hardin-Simmons or Concordia win... forget the idea of Rhodes being close enough - both are over 600 miles.
Per the idea of Rhodes hosting... they did this on the women's side a few years ago even though they weren't the higher of the four seeds (I want to say the third highest?). Getting a pod with driving partners was key and trumped seeding. I think now that we have a full bracket, sometimes the first weekend games may be forced to geographic locations more often than it has been in the past. Though, time will tell.
We know we are need teams to go to the Northwest. We may need two teams to go to Texas (depending on how the SCAC, basically, works out). There is a chance they ship the two Texas teams out, but with Concordia high on the regional ranking last week (very much subject to change), the idea of a Texas pod isn't that hard to imagine. That is four flights, period. One of them is going to be a SCIAC school. Maybe the committee can get creative outside of that.
They don't have to fly the SCIAC to the NWC, but the men have been a little more conservative in their bracketing lately and not putting auto flight teams into pods with teams that won't have to fly anywhere. Even if they're a lower seed and not likely to make it out of the weekend, I'm guessing, they'll still end up either in the NWC or Texas.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2017, 02:37:26 PM
They don't have to fly the SCIAC to the NWC, but the men have been a little more conservative in their bracketing lately and not putting auto flight teams into pods with teams that won't have to fly anywhere. Even if they're a lower seed and not likely to make it out of the weekend, I'm guessing, they'll still end up either in the NWC or Texas.
If that is how the bracketing and the selections dictate. Don't forget, the women have shown an East Coast team flying to the Northwest not that long ago. Who makes the tournament and how the bracket comes together can make a lot of decisions change. Sure, the Northwest and Texas look obvious, but what if Rhodes makes it along with Hardin-Simmons and, though maybe crazy but certainly possible, Colorado College? None of those three seem to be in a position to host. Two won't... Rhodes, maybe? Makes things very, very interesting.
Sure, it's nice to get creative with the projected bracketing and assume four flights for the opening weekend. But that's a dangerous assumption. While, as Dave pointed out, it's true that D3 is contributing more to the NCAA's coffers by increasing membership dues, we can't ever forget that D3 is the NCAA division that holds out the beggar's bowl when it comes to championship tournament budgeting.
I'd love it if the committee had the green light from Indianapolis to go ahead and bracket for four opening-weekend flights. But I'm thinking in terms of the worst-case scenario, budgetwise, which is why I'm eyeing a possible move by Rhodes or Hendrix to a Texas pod -- especially when there's currently three Texas teams sitting fifth or above in the South Region rankings and it looks as though LeTourneau could be a viable host. (I can't see any justification whatsoever for holding an opening weekend in Memphis or Conway, given the unimpressive records put together by those two SAA squads and the fact that it really doesn't appear that it would be necessary at all. In fact, if need be you could bus either the Lynx or the Warriors to St. Louis, where Wash U looks like a very likely candidate to host a pod.) It's also why I'm figuring that the SCIAC rep will go north to the Evergreen State, given that the SCIAC rep will be all alone on an island and the Whitman-based pod is going to need a couple more teams besides the Blues and the Pirates.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 12:19:37 PMA NESCAC at-large would be unreasonable punishment for Whitman. If they're going to make them host a pod with Whitworth and CMS (who is probably better than their selection numbers indicate) they should get one of the lowest ranked Pool A teams to fly in.
Good point. Southern Vermont, welcome to Walla Walla!
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 04:20:45 PM
Sure, it's nice to get creative with the projected bracketing and assume four flights for the opening weekend. But that's a dangerous assumption. While, as Dave pointed out, it's true that D3 is contributing more to the NCAA's coffers by increasing membership dues, we can't ever forget that D3 is the NCAA division that holds out the beggar's bowl when it comes to championship tournament budgeting.
I'd love it if the committee had the green light from Indianapolis to go ahead and bracket for four opening-weekend flights. But I'm thinking in terms of the worst-case scenario, budgetwise, which is why I'm eyeing a possible move by Rhodes or Hendrix to a Texas pod -- especially when there's currently three Texas teams sitting fifth or above in the South Region rankings and it looks as though LeTourneau could be a viable host. (I can't see any justification whatsoever for holding an opening weekend in Memphis or Conway, given the unimpressive records put together by those two SAA squads and the fact that it really doesn't appear that it would be necessary at all. In fact, if need be you could bus either the Lynx or the Warriors to St. Louis, where Wash U looks like a very likely candidate to host a pod.) It's also why I'm figuring that the SCIAC rep will go north to the Evergreen State, given that the SCIAC rep will be all alone on an island and the Whitman-based pod is going to need a couple more teams besides the Blues and the Pirates.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 12:19:37 PMA NESCAC at-large would be unreasonable punishment for Whitman. If they're going to make them host a pod with Whitworth and CMS (who is probably better than their selection numbers indicate) they should get one of the lowest ranked Pool A teams to fly in.
Good point. Southern Vermont, welcome to Walla Walla!
The only reason I suggested Rhodes is because it's a middle location between Texas and the MW/GL. I only see them hosting if the other option is a flight to Texas for someone. If they can do a four team no flight pod in Texas, I think you're right: they'll do it.
Hypothetical question...
If Mount Saint Joseph beats Hanover tonight, would Hope have to drop 2 of the next/last 4 to fall out of the #2 spot in the GL?
Quote from: HOPEful on February 15, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
Hypothetical question...
If Mount Saint Joseph beats Hanover tonight, would Hope have to drop 2 of the next/last 4 to fall out of the #2 spot in the GL?
I'd say no, since JCU (better SOS and better vs. RRO)has the potential to be very close to Hope as it is. One loss by Hope would certainly move JCU in front. I believe the only way Hope maintains a #2 ranking (and gets to host a pod) is to win their next 4 games
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 15, 2017, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on February 15, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
Hypothetical question...
If Mount Saint Joseph beats Hanover tonight, would Hope have to drop 2 of the next/last 4 to fall out of the #2 spot in the GL?
I'd say no, since JCU (better SOS and better vs. RRO)has the potential to be very close to Hope as it is. One loss by Hope would certainly move JCU in front. I believe the only way Hope maintains a #2 ranking (and gets to host a pod) is to win their next 4 games
They are 2-5 against RROs (Wins against Marietta and ONU, losses to Marietta, Mount St. Joe, Hanover, Hope, and ONU)
Hope is 2-1 (Wins against JCU and UW-River Falls, loss against Williams)
JCU was 5th in the region in last weeks regional rankings. I don't think they jump to 2nd without beating Marietta in the conference tournament.
If you compare the two side by side, I think the wins against Marietta and UWRF cancel each other out. Same for the bad losses to Muskingum and Wilkes. I don't know if the rest of their wins make up for twice as many losses, including the head to head game.
Official
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 19-4 19-4
2 Hope 18-3 19-4
3 Mt. St. Joseph 18-4 18-5
4 Hanover 17-3 19-3
5 John Carroll 16-6 16-6
6 Wooster 16-7 16-7
7 Denison 19-4 19-4
8 Ohio Northern 15-8 15-8
9 Ohio Wesleyan 17-6 17-6
A couple curious things
----Despite a loss, Mt. St. Joseph maintains the #3 spot over #4 Hanover
----Despite OWU beating Wooster, they drop behind Denison and Ohio Northern, while Wooster maintains its spot.
data sheet link: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
RRO's are dumb and stupid
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2017, 03:36:34 PM
RRO's are dumb and stupid
Yes
But I don't think either of your curious observations has much to do with RROs, if that's what you were implying.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2017, 03:36:34 PM
RRO's are dumb and stupid
Yes
But I don't think either of your curious observations has much to do with RROs, if that's what you were implying.
No not in those cases. But I think Denison moving up 2 spots was a case of RRO's giving them the advantage over OWU, and ONU somehow staying ahead of OWU was also RRO related and possibly due to RRO%????. Otherwise that must have been super close.
I also see other examples of RRO's in other regions. And I'm really curious if others think RRO's Win% are actually being used over just the "results vs" we've been told about. Perhaps there's more there than what I'm seeing, I do have an awful head cold.
Quote from: HOPEful on February 15, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
Hypothetical question...
If Mount Saint Joseph beats Hanover tonight, would Hope have to drop 2 of the next/last 4 to fall out of the #2 spot in the GL?
Whatever gap there is between Hope and Mt. St. Joe/Hanover is probably pretty small. Hope can't gain anymore RRO's because of random line drawn in sand, but should Hanover, Mt. Joseph meet in the HCAC tournament they both pick up two more RRO games from this set of ranking data.
Hypothetically, MSJ beats Hanover twice, Hope wins out:
MSJ would be
4-0 vs RRO, Hope still 2-1 (assuming Williams remains ranked, JCU and River Falls should have no problem) That might be enough for MSJ to make up for a .030 different in Win% and the current .010 SOS is going to close in MSJ's favor given the remaining games they have left.
:-\
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2017, 03:36:34 PM
----Despite OWU beating Wooster, they drop behind Denison and Ohio Northern, while Wooster maintains its spot.
RRO's are dumb and stupid
I wonder whether the vRROs did have an impact here. If we look at the three NCAC teams (through Sunday), each split their regular-season series against the others. I think that Wooster and Denison are each getting credit for another quality win, which OWU lacks, and Wooster is getting credited twice for SOS because of multiple nonconference losses against great teams.
Wooster 16-7(.696)/.544/3-5 (RPI .582)
Other RRO wins: St John Fisher (17-5, then East #2)
Other RRO losses: at Whitman (23-0, West #1), at Marietta (19-4, GL #1), vs Wash. U. (18-4, Central #2)
Other losses: at Hiram (10-13), at Lewis & Clark (9-11)
Denison 19-4(.826)/.463/3-2 (RPI .554)
Other RRO wins: at Ohio Northern (15-8, GL #8)
Other RRO losses: none
Other losses: vs Wittenberg (17-6)
Ohio Wesleyan 17-6(.739)/.506/2-4 (RPI .564)
Other RRO wins:
noneOther RRO losses: vs Illinois Wesleyan (Central #7), neu. Wash. U. (18-4, Central #2)
Other losses: vs Capital (11-12), neu. Otterbein (7-16)
And for comparison, here's Ohio Northern (who split with both Marietta & John Carroll), both clearly better teams than the NCAC trio.
Ohio Northern 15-8(.652)/.546/2-3 (RPI .572)
Other RRO wins: none
Other RRO losses: vs Denison (19-4, then GL #9), vs UW-Whitewater (18-4, Central #3),
Other losses: at Alma (11-12), at Mount Union (13-10), at Transylvania (14-8), at Trine (11-11)
Because of the nonconference schedule, Wooster's SOS is .038 better than OWU's (more than enough to make up for one extra loss) and .078 better than Denison (more than compensating for three extra losses.) These three split against each other, but Wooster and Denison each have another good win, while OWU doesn't, which might have made the difference. I think that ONU's two key wins are the only thing keeping them ranked, given that their WP is well below .700.
Looking ahead, I think that the best anyone below JCU can do (without winning an AQ) is to get on the bubble. Out of these other four, Wooster may have the best chance. If they lose the NCAC final (likely beating Denison and losing at OWU in the process), they could be 20-8(.714), with a .550-ish SOS and 4-6 vRRO, which might be enough. It's nearly impossible to get a Pool C berth with a sub-.500 SOS, and Denison would be in that position with five losses. OWU has a .500-ish SOS, but with 7 losses, I don't see that happening either. ONU (by winning out to reach the OAC final) could have an SOS in the .560-.570 range and four high-quality wins (Marietta and JCU twice each), but 19-9(.679) is likely one loss too many; 20-8 probably would have done it for them. Any of those teams that can win out except the conference final probably gets to the table, but may be left wondering what might have been if they had won just one more game somewhere along the way.
It seems to me that the RRAC eventually will need to pick the one team out of this group with the best Pool C resume (as the #6 team in the region) and the ordering below that won't matter.
Keep in mind... the RACs and the national committee are looking at FAR more than just primary criteria. We have heard them talk about diving into the numbers as best they can and as deep as they are allowed to make a decision. These decisions doesn't necessarily come down to SOS comparison, WL% comparision, and especially vRRO comparisions. And vRRO analysis could mean dozens of different data points to work from.
Hanover has a decent chance of being placed ahead of Hope next week with 4 RRO's to 3 and similar W% and SOS. Even better chance if they win out and beat MSJ in the HCAC finals.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 12:38:04 PM
Keep in mind... the RACs and the national committee are looking at FAR more than just primary criteria. We have heard them talk about diving into the numbers as best they can and as deep as they are allowed to make a decision. These decisions doesn't necessarily come down to SOS comparison, WL% comparision, and especially vRRO comparisions. And vRRO analysis could mean dozens of different data points to work from.
Dave . . . I am operating under the assumption that barring an uncharacteristic amount of AQ upsets in the conference tournaments (especially in the GL) that JCU, with a win on Saturday, will have a very strong resume and will likely make the tournament regardless of OAC tournament performance. I just think that they will be on the board for quite a while and will eventually be selected. Thoughts? Too optimistic.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 16, 2017, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 12:38:04 PM
Keep in mind... the RACs and the national committee are looking at FAR more than just primary criteria. We have heard them talk about diving into the numbers as best they can and as deep as they are allowed to make a decision. These decisions doesn't necessarily come down to SOS comparison, WL% comparision, and especially vRRO comparisions. And vRRO analysis could mean dozens of different data points to work from.
Dave . . . I am operating under the assumption that barring an uncharacteristic amount of AQ upsets in the conference tournaments (especially in the GL) that JCU, with a win on Saturday, will have a very strong resume and will likely make the tournament regardless of OAC tournament performance. I just think that they will be on the board for quite a while and will eventually be selected. Thoughts? Too optimistic.
John Carroll is right on my bubble line. I think by getting to their OAC title game they help themselves a ton. I think the SOS has been helping them, but the committee isn't staring at the number and making decisions based on it... they are diving into it more and as we have seen, it hasn't been a huge help for JCU as of yet. So yeah, I think if they are there in the OAC title game they have done what they can to better themselves and they will get to the table. The question becomes if MSJ or Hanover are there ahead of them and block them for awhile first.
And being at the table a long time doesn't necessarily mean a team will be selected. Teams from the Atlantic, especially, and East regions have sat at the table the entire 19 picks (in the past; 21 this year) and not been selected. There isn't any truth to "at the table a long time betters their chances of being picked." Sadly, I think the opposite can run true.
But yeah... JCU I think has a chance at an at large... but as you said, let's see how many upsets take place.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 16, 2017, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 12:38:04 PM
Keep in mind... the RACs and the national committee are looking at FAR more than just primary criteria. We have heard them talk about diving into the numbers as best they can and as deep as they are allowed to make a decision. These decisions doesn't necessarily come down to SOS comparison, WL% comparision, and especially vRRO comparisions. And vRRO analysis could mean dozens of different data points to work from.
Dave . . . I am operating under the assumption that barring an uncharacteristic amount of AQ upsets in the conference tournaments (especially in the GL) that JCU, with a win on Saturday, will have a very strong resume and will likely make the tournament regardless of OAC tournament performance. I just think that they will be on the board for quite a while and will eventually be selected. Thoughts? Too optimistic.
John Carroll is right on my bubble line. I think by getting to their OAC title game they help themselves a ton. I think the SOS has been helping them, but the committee isn't staring at the number and making decisions based on it... they are diving into it more and as we have seen, it hasn't been a huge help for JCU as of yet. So yeah, I think if they are there in the OAC title game they have done what they can to better themselves and they will get to the table. The question becomes if MSJ or Hanover are there ahead of them and block them for awhile first.
And being at the table a long time doesn't necessarily mean a team will be selected. Teams from the Atlantic, especially, and East regions have sat at the table the entire 19 picks (in the past; 21 this year) and not been selected. There isn't any truth to "at the table a long time betters their chances of being picked." Sadly, I think the opposite can run true.
But yeah... JCU I think has a chance at an at large... but as you said, let's see how many upsets take place.
Thank you for your thoughts. I did not mean to indicate that I thought being at the table for a long time would be a good thing. I more meant that it is my belief that JCU will not find itself buried in the Great Lakes rankings and never make it to the table for consideration. You make a good point about Hanover and MSJ but, again, I do not predict that happening. Too many conference tourney upsets and it could be an early off season if JCU does not take care of business but I like their chances. I think a win in the next two games for JCU (regular season finale and conference quarters) and all will be well. Your scenario - three more wins and an appearance in the title game) is the safer route, of course.
Of course, the safest route is to simply win that tournament next Saturday but I have not seen us do that very many times. As good as we have been since we joined the OAC in 1989, we have only won 4 tournament titles and we made the finals and lost 4 other times. In that same span we have won 10 regular season titles and advanced to the tournament 12 times (2 more came while a member of the PAC for a total of 14 appearances) so at-large has been our path most times.
Last Week's poll
1 Marietta 19-4 19-4
2 Hope 18-3 19-4
3 Mt. St. Joseph 18-4 18-5
4 Hanover 17-3 19-3
5 John Carroll 16-6 16-6
6 Wooster 16-7 16-7
7 Denison 19-4 19-4
8 Ohio Northern 15-8 15-8
9 Ohio Wesleyan 17-6 17-6
Seem to be 3 big things about Wed's poll.
What order to you place Hope, Hanover, Mt. St. Joseph?
Hanover 20-3 .864/.522/2-2
Hope 19-4 .826/.521/2-1
Mt. St. Joe 17-4 .792/.510/2-1
Does Wooster move ahead of John Carroll?
John Carroll 17-7 .704/.568/2-5
Wooster 18-7 .720/.536/3-5
Does 9 loss Ohio Northern remain in the poll at all? Keeping in mind there is no team with an SOS above .500 in position to be ranked.
Ohio Northern 16-9 .640/.550/2-4
Without diving into common opponents or anything I think Hanover jumps to No. 2 ahead of Hope and MSJ.
I think MSJ stays ahead of John Carroll and Wooster by the slimest of margins though I could see these three ranked in just about any order.
I'd go:
1. Marietta (have to be a lock for hosting right? I can't see any scenario where they fall past #2 at this point.)
2. Hanover
3. Hope
4. MSJ
5. JCU
6. Wooster (JCU and Wooster are really tight..I leaned towards JCU's better SOS but it could go either way here.)
7. Denison
8. OWU
9. ONU
The order of JCU and Wooster is important because by that point we'd be getting to the end of what I believe is the Pool C chances for the region. Which of them gets to the table first could mean being in or out.
What do the numbers look like if Hope were to win the MIAA tournament and Hanover were to lose in their final to MSJ or Anderson?
Quote from: HOPEful on February 19, 2017, 04:53:03 PM
What do the numbers look like if Hope were to win the MIAA tournament and Hanover were to lose in their final to MSJ or Anderson?
It was my feeling heading into yesterday that even with a Hope win over Calvin and winning out, Hanover had a chance to catch Hope in the criteria if they also won out. With Hope losing yesterday I'm not sure Hanover can fall back enough for Hope to catch them unless they lost in the QF. It will probably be very, very close though.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2017, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on February 19, 2017, 04:53:03 PM
What do the numbers look like if Hope were to win the MIAA tournament and Hanover were to lose in their final to MSJ or Anderson?
It was my feeling heading into yesterday that even with a Hope win over Calvin and winning out, Hanover had a chance to catch Hope in the criteria if they also won out. With Hope losing yesterday I'm not sure Hanover can fall back enough for Hope to catch them unless they lost in the QF. It will probably be very, very close though.
I don't believe the HCAC has quarterfinals...only 6 teams make the tournament for the HCAC. Hanover would have a bye to the semis.
John Carroll falls to Muskingum on a final second 3-pointer. That probably ends their season. Ohio Northern is likely gone as well as they fall in the OAC quarterfinals as well.
In the NCAC, the top 4 seeds advance. Wooster, Denison, OWU, and Wittenberg all win.
Official (does not include last nights results)
GREAT LAKES
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 21-4 21-4
2 Hanover 19-3 21-3
3 Hope 19-4 20-5
4 Mt. St. Joseph 19-5 19-6
5 Wooster 18-7 18-7
6 John Carroll 17-7 17-7
7 Denison 21-4 21-4
8 Ohio Wesleyan 19-6 19-6
9 Ohio Northern 16-9 16-9
All the regions http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2017, 02:14:58 PM
Official (does not include last nights results)
GREAT LAKES
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 21-4 21-4
2 Hanover 19-3 21-3
3 Hope 19-4 20-5
4 Mt. St. Joseph 19-5 19-6
5 Wooster 18-7 18-7
6 John Carroll 17-7 17-7
7 Denison 21-4 21-4
8 Ohio Wesleyan 19-6 19-6
9 Ohio Northern 16-9 16-9
All the regions http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I think we can cement Marietta in as the 1. I think the same can be said of Hanover and the 2 if they win the HCAC tournament.
Hanover - W% - .864, SOS - .523
Hope - W% - .826, SOS - .519
I think it would be a real tough decision between Hanover and Hope if Hope were to win the MIAA tournament and Hanover were to lose to Mt. St. Joe or Anderson in the HCAC final. I would lean towards Hope as the tournament champion and by way of their RRO win against UW-River Falls, but I'm also very biased. :P
Not to put the cart before the horse, both teams could struggle in their semi-final match-ups. Alma played Hope tough both times they met this year and Hope hasn't really wowed anyone with their play since the game @ calvin. And if Transylvania can get past Rose-Hulman, they lost at Hanover on a buzzer beating layup and at Transylvania, the Pioneers held a 1 point lead over Hanover with 5 seconds to go when Cam Fails hit a jumper to once again give the Panthers the win.
Quote from: HOPEful on February 22, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2017, 02:14:58 PM
Official (does not include last nights results)
GREAT LAKES
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Marietta 21-4 21-4
2 Hanover 19-3 21-3
3 Hope 19-4 20-5
4 Mt. St. Joseph 19-5 19-6
5 Wooster 18-7 18-7
6 John Carroll 17-7 17-7
7 Denison 21-4 21-4
8 Ohio Wesleyan 19-6 19-6
9 Ohio Northern 16-9 16-9
All the regions http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
I think we can cement Marietta in as the 1. I think the same can be said of Hanover and the 2 if they win the HCAC tournament.
Hanover - W% - .864, SOS - .523
Hope - W% - .826, SOS - .519
I think it would be a real tough decision between Hanover and Hope if Hope were to win the MIAA tournament and Hanover were to lose to Mt. St. Joe or Anderson in the HCAC final. I would lean towards Hope as the tournament champion and by way of their RRO win against UW-River Falls, but I'm also very biased. :P
Not to put the cart before the horse, both teams could struggle in their semi-final match-ups. Alma played Hope tough both times they met this year and Hope hasn't really wowed anyone with their play since the game @ calvin. And if Transylvania can get past Rose-Hulman, they lost at Hanover on a buzzer beating layup and at Transylvania, the Pioneers held a 1 point lead over Hanover with 5 seconds to go when Cam Fails hit a jumper to once again give the Panthers the win.
Hope's SOS should in theory sink more than Hanover this week since Hanover will be playing at least one, possibly two teams with better records than Hope might play this weekend. Very hard for Hope to close that small SOS gap, plus Hanover will pick up another RRO if they play Mt. St. Joseph. Even if Hanover loses the criteria probably still leans towards them being #2.
Here's what I'm thinking on the region:
1) Marietta (22-4, 0.576, 4-4 vRRO) lock & will host
2) Hanover (19-3, 0.520, 2-2 vRRO) near-lock & should host if HCAC champ
3) Hope (19-4, 0.520, 2-1 vRRO) likely in even if MIAA semi loss, may host if champ & Hanover loses
4) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO) likely in if HCAC final, but bubble with semi loss
5) Wooster (19-7, 0.535, 3-5 vRRO) likely in if NCAC final, but doubtful with semi loss
6) John Carroll (17-8, 0.560, 2-5) not a contender after OAC quarterfinal loss
7) Denison (22-4, 0.466, 3-2 vRRO) bubble if NCAC final, but doubtful with semi loss
8) Ohio Wesleyan (20-6, 0.502, 2-3 vRRO) probably needs to win NCAC tournament
9) Ohio Northern (16-10, 0.549, 2-4) not a contender after OAC quarterfinal loss
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2017, 05:09:13 PM
Hope's SOS should in theory sink more than Hanover this week since Hanover will be playing at least one, possibly two teams with better records than Hope might play this weekend. Very hard for Hope to close that small SOS gap, plus Hanover will pick up another RRO if they play Mt. St. Joseph. Even if Hanover loses the criteria probably still leans towards them being #2.
I think the SOS difference will be too close to call on that alone.
The 5 primary criteria are:
Win% - which would be pretty much equal
SOS - Hanover will have the better SOS, but not by a ton. If the committee thinks the difference is enough and stops here, Hanover is the 2 seed.
RRO - What's better (2-1) or (2-3)? Picking up another RRO isn't necessarily a good thing if you don't win, right? Plus, if Hanover lost again to MSJ, they'd be 1-2 against the Lions. Take away the two, maybe three games against Mount St. Joseph, and they're RRO record is (1-1), with the 1 win coming against a John Carroll team that Hope beat at John Carroll. We have been told many times that not all RROs are equal. Hanover getting crushed by Washington and Hope beating UW-River Falls @ Stout... and I would think RROs is a category Hope is beating Hanover in...
Head-to-head - N/A
Results vs common D3 opponents - John Carroll and Alma. Not much to gather here assuming Hope wins Friday night...
Of course, it's all a moot point if Hanover takes care of business on their home court this weekend...
The final GL poll should look something like this with AQ's in Bold
1. Marietta
2. Hanover
3. Hope
4. MSJ
5. Wooster ---may end up #4, with MSJ #5
6. JCU
7. Ohio Wes.
8. Denison
9. Thomas More/Ohio No
The 9th ranking slot is mostly moot for Pool C discussion, ONU maintains the RRO's for Marietta and JCU, Thomas More would be neutral but weaken JCU's RRO's.
For Pool C purposes, depending on the Hanover/MSJ result this afternoon your Pool C order should be Hanover-Hope-JCU if Hanover loses or Hope-MSJ-JCU with the slight chance that its Hope-JCU-MSJ if MSJ loses.
Hanover-Hope-JCU scenario
Hanover and Hope should be in without a lot of sweat
JCU will be on the table for discussion for multiple rounds, if selected it would be one of the last rounds. More likely they are out.
Hope-MSJ-JCU
Hope should be in, it gets dicey for MSJ with a not great SOS but they should get selected in one of Pool C's late rounds without a lot of upsets. Like the first scenario JCU will be at the table and may not get selected.
Hope-JCU-MSJ
Hope should be in. JCU may or not be selected, MSJ could be stuck behind JCU and never be discussed or make the table very late.
With JCU losing in the QF of the OAC and MSJ advancing to the HCAC final I think this ranking scenario is very unlikely
Ohio Wesleyan is probably only going to make the final table if JCU is selected, but it unlikely OWU's criteria will be good enough for selection.
Denison will be ranked behind OWU and never make the table for Pool C
The Great Lakes/Central/West is a pretty big nightmare for hosting and seedings. Hosting is complicated and I hope I don't confuse the issue much.
Hosting
Whitman (I guess slight chance Whitman women host instead) (yikes!!)
River Falls
Marietta
Hanover
WashU is in position to host, but will not host because their women will likely host.
Depending on how Pool C selections workout, I count 23-25 teams from the Great Lakes/Central and West Regions making the field. +/- 2 or 3 for teams moving in or out of region. We will likely need 5 or 6 hosting sites.
Geography is really working against the committee this year because the obvious hosts are all on the fringes of the regions. Meaning there isn't a lot of flexibility for moving teams around. I think the committee needs at least 1 host around Chicago (a very wide net) and another site either in Minn/Iowa, another around Chicago, or possibly in Eastern Ohio.
Based on rankings and merit, most likely hosts (I think they need to pick 2 of these, def. one)
Whitewater---would be a good choice, central location near Chicago
Eau Claire---disadvantage of being so close to River Falls, doesn't help move pieces around very well
Hope---mostly central location, criteria behind Whitewater
Augustana---fringe central location, fringe criteria for hosting
North Central---central location, criteria probably doesn't warrant host site
Benedictine---central location, criteria probably doesn't warrant host site
Bethel---criteria doesn't warrant host, not great for solving travel issues, close to River Falls
Wartburg---criteria doesn't warrant host, not great for solving travel issues
Wooster---bridge to NY, Pa if needed, criteria isn't bad for hosting.
Update---Bumping Hanover to "hosting" after they won the HCAC Tournament.
I think Wooster will be the No. 3 ranked team in the region or maybe No. 2 if Hanover loses in the championship game today. I'm liking them more and more as a potential host site too.
I was wondering earlier in the week if Calvin could sneak into the No. 9 spot with an MIAA Tournament win. Doesn't look like that can happen. I could see an argument for them as high as 10 but no way to get them into the top 9.
What are your feelings on moving Rhodes/Birm-So or Emory into Hanover or Marietta. Or are they needed in Texas?
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2017, 03:52:41 PM
What are your feelings on moving Rhodes/Birm-So or Emory into Hanover or Marietta. Or are they needed in Texas?
The problem is LaGrange can only get to Emory (34 miles too far for Hanover). Otherwise Hanover would be a better location based on the seeding.
Emory - LaGrange - Guilford - SAA is a rather weak pod, but I think you need Hanover to host in the GL/Central to make the numbers work. Otherwise Hanover could go there and Guilford could travel up the coast.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 04:04:29 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2017, 03:52:41 PM
What are your feelings on moving Rhodes/Birm-So or Emory into Hanover or Marietta. Or are they needed in Texas?
The problem is LaGrange can only get to Emory (34 miles too far for Hanover). Otherwise Hanover would be a better location based on the seeding.
Emory - LaGrange - Guilford - SAA is a rather weak pod, but I think you need Hanover to host in the GL/Central to make the numbers work. Otherwise Hanover could go there and Guilford could travel up the coast.
LaGrange was the problem. Mt. St. Joe wasn't high enough ranked to host over Emory. Guilford would've made more sense for bracketing, but Emory is higher ranked, so you have to go that route.
The not so super-secret final rankings
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
By all accounts Hope was comfortably in the field as a Pool C unless I'm mistaken, Mt. St. Joseph was not selected, passed over at least a half dozen times.
Hope 20-5 .800/ .523 / 2-1
MSJ 20-6 .769/ .523 / 2-3
Harsh!!!
Thomas More entered the poll at #9, MSJ lost at Thomas More 65-62. Unreal if that what ultimately kept them out.
Looking at the final rankings, Hope must be hosting solely because of geography. Wash. U.'s women had hosting priority, and Wooster (ahead of Hope in the GL) was too far east to host that pod.
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2017, 04:27:59 PM
By all accounts Hope was comfortably in the field as a Pool C unless I'm mistaken, Mt. St. Joseph was not selected, passed over at least a half dozen times.
Hope 20-5 .800/ .523 / 2-1
MSJ 20-6 .769/ .523 / 2-3
Harsh!!!
Thomas More entered the poll at #9, MSJ lost at Thomas More 65-62. Unreal if that what ultimately kept them out.
It's much more who those RROs were. Hope beat River Falls and took Williams to OT; MSJ went 1-2 against Hanover and beat John Carroll.
Endicott might be a better comp for MSJ - same SOS, a few more wins, but EC beat Middlebury. Those big wins over top or near top ranked teams matters. MSJ needed an extra win against Hanover to put them over the edge - if they did it in the tourney final, they wouldn't have had to worry about the bubble at all.
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 03:55:51 PM
Great Lakes Conf Tourny Champs
OAC John Carroll
NCAC Denison
MIAA Alma
PAC St. Vincent
AMCC Pitt-Greensburg
HCAC Mt. St. Joseph
All 6 Great Lakes AQ's are different than last year
OAC Marietta
NCAC Wooster
MIAA Calvin
PAC Thomas More
AMCC Medaille
HCAC Hanover
Great Lakes Pool C's2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--11
OAC--6
MIAA--3
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 04:56:59 PM
Looking at the final rankings, Hope must be hosting solely because of geography. Wash. U.'s women had hosting priority, and Wooster (ahead of Hope in the GL) was too far east to host that pod.
Yes... this is absolutely a hosting shift due to WashU women hosting. Happened three times in the men's bracket this year.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 11:42:46 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 04:56:59 PM
Looking at the final rankings, Hope must be hosting solely because of geography. Wash. U.'s women had hosting priority, and Wooster (ahead of Hope in the GL) was too far east to host that pod.
Yes... this is absolutely a hosting shift due to WashU women hosting. Happened three times in the men's bracket this year.
Did you ask about those specifically? Because I'm wondering if Tufts wasn't in line to host their pod - I can't imagine they were ranked ahead of SJF in the rankings. Or maybe Williams was in line to host and Scranton wasn't? Hard to know exactly what criteria they used for selecting. Was it two per region or just straight top 16 like last year?
I bet if you asked, Hope won out by criteria over Benedictine, North Central and probably Augustana to host the WashU pod.
A geographic move, but criteria still plays a role.
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2017, 02:11:39 PM
I bet if you asked, Hope won out by criteria over Benedictine, North Central and probably Augustana to host the WashU pod.
A geographic move, but criteria still plays a role.
Also Hope wins out by projected ticket sale $. They can consider this!
QuoteThe Championships Committee has prioritized the following site-selection criteria for all championships:
1. Complete bid;
2. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
3. Geographical location (which may include such factors as rotation of sites, weather, accessibility and transportation costs);
4. Seeding; and
5. Attendance history, hosting history and revenue potential, which shall be considered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
and that as well. Which never hurts.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 11:42:46 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 04:56:59 PM
Looking at the final rankings, Hope must be hosting solely because of geography. Wash. U.'s women had hosting priority, and Wooster (ahead of Hope in the GL) was too far east to host that pod.
Yes... this is absolutely a hosting shift due to WashU women hosting. Happened three times in the men's bracket this year.
Did you ask about those specifically? Because I'm wondering if Tufts wasn't in line to host their pod - I can't imagine they were ranked ahead of SJF in the rankings. Or maybe Williams was in line to host and Scranton wasn't? Hard to know exactly what criteria they used for selecting. Was it two per region or just straight top 16 like last year?
Yes.. I asked KVS off air specifically before I did the NCAA bracket show so I knew for sure. Furthermore, in the lower left the hosts tend to be the bottom team. Williams was not going to host, Scranton was as well.
And as it was discussed in the past... they are trying to have the best 16 host to a degree... top two in each region is hard to fulfill by that standard and the standard alone.
Though, I will add the UW-River Falls is the top seeded team in that pod. WashU may not be in a good position, though I think all teams can get to WashU with no problems.
Wooster is not the favorite in the Hanover group, but if the Scots win this weekend, they can't get to River Falls, and I am not sure that they can get to Wash. U., either. If Wooster advances, the sectional might end up in Whitewater.
Hanover can't get to River Falls without a flight either.
It does get complicated... but nice to see the committee is willing to be more creative and the NCAA willing to be a little less stringent.
The 2017 Great Lakes Invitational at Marietta College game schedule was released this morning...should be a fun weekend of competitive basketball.
Friday, November 17, 2017:
2:00 p.m. — Wittenberg (18-9) vs. Mount St. Joseph (20-7)
4:00 p.m. — Birmingham-Southern (14-14) vs. St. John Fisher (23-6)
6:00 p.m. — St. Thomas (19-8) vs. Dickinson (16-11)
8:00 p.m. — Marietta (26-5) vs. Hope (23-7)
Saturday, November 18, 2017:
1:00 p.m. — Wittenberg vs. Birmingham-Southern
3:00 p.m. — Hope vs. St. John Fisher
5:00 p.m. — Mount St. Joseph vs. Dickinson
7:00 p.m. — Marietta vs. St. Thomas
This will be a good test for UST, who loses their stud All-American PG Grant Shaeffer but not much else. They always reload well and have good depth. Interested to see how they will do against some good GL Region squads. All of these games will be big results come Pool C time next Feb.
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 24, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
I am willing to bet TMC has sent an letter of interest to a number of conferences. I am not surprised in the least OAC got one. I am sure they sent another (or continued conversations) to the MIAA. I am sure the NCAC and the HCAC also got letters.
And who knows... now-a-days, 11 members isn't as bad a deal as it used to be. Unbalanced schedules are also starting to become a bit more normal - or at least discussed.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 26, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 24, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
I am willing to bet TMC has sent an letter of interest to a number of conferences. I am not surprised in the least OAC got one. I am sure they sent another (or continued conversations) to the MIAA. I am sure the NCAC and the HCAC also got letters.
And who knows... now-a-days, 11 members isn't as bad a deal as it used to be. Unbalanced schedules are also starting to become a bit more normal - or at least discussed.
Thomas More and the MIAA have had conversations about Membership? That's surprising. They're a four-hour drive away from the closest current members.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 26, 2017, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 26, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 24, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
I am willing to bet TMC has sent an letter of interest to a number of conferences. I am not surprised in the least OAC got one. I am sure they sent another (or continued conversations) to the MIAA. I am sure the NCAC and the HCAC also got letters.
And who knows... now-a-days, 11 members isn't as bad a deal as it used to be. Unbalanced schedules are also starting to become a bit more normal - or at least discussed.
Thomas More and the MIAA have had conversations about Membership? That's surprising. They're a four-hour drive away from the closest current members.
Still closer than Finlandia!
I thought I had read that on the boards somewhere... maybe I am confusing things, but fairly sure that had been discussed previously (I'm not great at searching the boards SMH).
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 26, 2017, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 26, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 24, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
I am willing to bet TMC has sent an letter of interest to a number of conferences. I am not surprised in the least OAC got one. I am sure they sent another (or continued conversations) to the MIAA. I am sure the NCAC and the HCAC also got letters.
And who knows... now-a-days, 11 members isn't as bad a deal as it used to be. Unbalanced schedules are also starting to become a bit more normal - or at least discussed.
Thomas More and the MIAA have had conversations about Membership? That's surprising. They're a four-hour drive away from the closest current members.
Stranger things have happened.
Nebraska Wesleyan joined the IIAC last season. The two
closest schools are a 3 1/2 hour bus ride away.
Three of the conference schools are SIX hours distant.
NWU is the only school not in Iowa (as the conference name implies).
Text of conversation:
Thomas More: hey, you know we're looking for a new conference what do you think?
MIAA: You're in Kentucky <click>
Quote from: sac on July 26, 2017, 03:40:31 PM
Text of conversation:
Thomas More: hey, you know we're looking for a new conference what do you think?
MIAA: You're in Kentucky <click>
Not to mention a Catholic College, which to millennials like myself matters little, but may not sit as well with the seasoned and staunchest of Dutch Reformed at Hope and calvin. I can't really envision anyone in the MIAA arguing that adding Thomas More would be good for the conference.
A Catholic school has been trying to get into the CCIW for years, and hasn't even been able to get a little toe in the door let alone a whole foot! :o
Quote from: HOPEful on July 26, 2017, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: sac on July 26, 2017, 03:40:31 PM
Text of conversation:
Thomas More: hey, you know we're looking for a new conference what do you think?
MIAA: You're in Kentucky <click>
Not to mention a Catholic College, which to millennials like myself matters little, but may not sit as well with the seasoned and staunchest of Dutch Reformed at Hope and calvin. I can't really envision anyone in the MIAA arguing that adding Thomas More would be good for the conference.
???
(https://www.collegeexpertmn.com/images/logo-st-marys-notre-dame.jpg)
and Hope just hired a guy to handle on campus Catholic services for students. ???
D3football had a podcast where Pat Coleman and Adam Turer discussed Thomas More and it was implied strongly that the MIAA and TMC had conversations about a move, but it isn't going to happen.
OAC would be fun for football and women's basketball. NCAC would be fun for football and men's basketball. HCAC probably makes the most sense geographically.
Quote from: gordonmann on July 27, 2017, 12:14:04 PM
D3football had a podcast where Pat Coleman and Adam Turer discussed Thomas More and it was implied strongly that the MIAA and TMC had conversations about a move, but it isn't going to happen.
OAC would be fun for football and women's basketball. NCAC would be fun for football and men's basketball. HCAC probably makes the most sense geographically.
SMH that's where I was hearing it. My summer has been a blur.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 26, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on July 24, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
It is my understanding that Thomas More has sent a letter of interest to the OAC. Do I think it's something that happens? Probably not as I don't believe schools in the conference want 11 members. The only scenario I can imagine working out from here is that Wilmington has a desire to go back to the Heartland and is accepted back making room for Thomas More (not completely out of the question in my opinion).
I am willing to bet TMC has sent an letter of interest to a number of conferences. I am not surprised in the least OAC got one. I am sure they sent another (or continued conversations) to the MIAA. I am sure the NCAC and the HCAC also got letters.
And who knows... now-a-days, 11 members isn't as bad a deal as it used to be. Unbalanced schedules are also starting to become a bit more normal - or at least discussed.
Given one of the main reasons cited for leaving the PAC was the amount of travel involved for TMC for away games, the MIAA wouldn't make much sense. Joining the MIAA would actually increase their travel requirements. The closest PAC school to TMC is Bethany at 255 miles while the closest MIAA school would be Trine at around 230 miles. On the other hand, the furthest PAC school for TMC is St Vincent at 330 miles, while Calvin, Hope and Alma all exceed 370 miles. The NCAC also doesn't seem very plausible either, since TMC doesn't fit the institutional profile.
The conferences that make sense would be the OAC or HCAC, with the HCAC being the best from a geographical standpoint and it would also provide an instant rival in Mt St Joseph.
[Fixed formatting/pc]
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2017, 10:10:54 AM
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
It really feels like pulling out of the PAC was a knee jerk reaction. Even if it were deemed necessary, I would think a lot of leg work could/should have been done in advance. Now it appears as though it's OAC or Independent, and I don't see the OAC accepting TMC without dropping a member. Is it possible Wilmington would return to the HCAC if given the opportunity? Maybe. Is it possible TMC had some or all of these conversations prior to announcing leaving the PAC. Sure. But it seems like a lot of ducks to get in a row to avoid being an Independent and that the rumor mill would be spinning faster if there was already a plan in the works.
Quote from: HOPEful on August 15, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2017, 10:10:54 AM
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
It really feels like pulling out of the PAC was a knee jerk reaction. Even if it were deemed necessary, I would think a lot of leg work could/should have been done in advance. Now it appears as though it's OAC or Independent, and I don't see the OAC accepting TMC without dropping a member. Is it possible Wilmington would return to the HCAC if given the opportunity? Maybe. Is it possible TMC had some or all of these conversations prior to announcing leaving the PAC. Sure. But it seems like a lot of ducks to get in a row to avoid being an Independent and that the rumor mill would be spinning faster if there was already a plan in the works.
My feeling of the situation was that TMC left on their own, but would have been forced out shortly after if they hadn't. I am not sure this is a situation they were necessarily ready for. The only way I see TMC joining the OAC is if another member makes a move to the HCAC (the common thought he is Wilmington which I agree with). It's been hinted to me that some at Wilmington may want to go back to the HCAC but I am not sure where those who make those decisions stand on that. If none of those pieces move, TMC might be stuck in a rough spot with no where to go.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on August 15, 2017, 01:16:39 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on August 15, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2017, 10:10:54 AM
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
It really feels like pulling out of the PAC was a knee jerk reaction. Even if it were deemed necessary, I would think a lot of leg work could/should have been done in advance. Now it appears as though it's OAC or Independent, and I don't see the OAC accepting TMC without dropping a member. Is it possible Wilmington would return to the HCAC if given the opportunity? Maybe. Is it possible TMC had some or all of these conversations prior to announcing leaving the PAC. Sure. But it seems like a lot of ducks to get in a row to avoid being an Independent and that the rumor mill would be spinning faster if there was already a plan in the works.
My feeling of the situation was that TMC left on their own, but would have been forced out shortly after if they hadn't. I am not sure this is a situation they were necessarily ready for. The only way I see TMC joining the OAC is if another member makes a move to the HCAC (the common thought he is Wilmington which I agree with). It's been hinted to me that some at Wilmington may want to go back to the HCAC but I am not sure where those who make those decisions stand on that. If none of those pieces move, TMC might be stuck in a rough spot with no where to go.
I'm really baffled by the idea that TMC didn't have a predetermined place to land when they announced they were leaving the PAC. Particularly since they asked the PAC to cut the normal 2 year waiting period down to 1. I figured they already knew where they were going. There were some rumors floating around that they might be moving up to DII.
Quote from: pghome on August 15, 2017, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on August 15, 2017, 01:16:39 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on August 15, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2017, 10:10:54 AM
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
It really feels like pulling out of the PAC was a knee jerk reaction. Even if it were deemed necessary, I would think a lot of leg work could/should have been done in advance. Now it appears as though it's OAC or Independent, and I don't see the OAC accepting TMC without dropping a member. Is it possible Wilmington would return to the HCAC if given the opportunity? Maybe. Is it possible TMC had some or all of these conversations prior to announcing leaving the PAC. Sure. But it seems like a lot of ducks to get in a row to avoid being an Independent and that the rumor mill would be spinning faster if there was already a plan in the works.
My feeling of the situation was that TMC left on their own, but would have been forced out shortly after if they hadn't. I am not sure this is a situation they were necessarily ready for. The only way I see TMC joining the OAC is if another member makes a move to the HCAC (the common thought he is Wilmington which I agree with). It's been hinted to me that some at Wilmington may want to go back to the HCAC but I am not sure where those who make those decisions stand on that. If none of those pieces move, TMC might be stuck in a rough spot with no where to go.
I'm really baffled by the idea that TMC didn't have a predetermined place to land when they announced they were leaving the PAC. Particularly since they asked the PAC to cut the normal 2 year waiting period down to 1. I figured they already knew where they were going. There were some rumors floating around that they might be moving up to DII.
Maybe now you are reading enough between the lines to understand what might have actually happened. Fifth alludes to it, but in the football room this has been discussed... the fact TMC left in less time than the 2 years usually required, didn't have a place to land, and now is rudderless is enough of a clue to see that maybe this wasn't really TMC's decision.
I know a recent article spins it that TMC was finally interested in going and made it sound like travel was one of the criteria. It is great spin. The travel equation was really from other conference members not interested in making the trip to TMC (especially to get their asses handed to them before heading home) than the other way around. Also, the women's basketball situation has left a very bitter taste in the mouth of a number of institutions in the PAC who were also getting their read ends handed to them on a regular basis. It all adds up pretty quick. The article has a lot of words that basically says nothing and certainly doesn't tell the true story going on.
Fifth alludes well that if TMC didn't leave on their own that they were probably going to get kicked out. I would take it a step further from what I have gathered and say this: TMC was going to leave the conference this summer whether they wanted to or not and no matter how the story was to be written. They could save face and make it seem like it was TMC's idea and the PAC wasn't getting in the way (nice compromise to help both parties) as was written ... or we were going to read a story about the PAC kicking TMC out. Conferences will do that from time to time... we don't have to go that far back in DIII history to see it.
We also know TMC absolutely danced with the MIAA recently, it just hasn't come together. I am not betting on it happening, but who knows. I don't think TMC is going to say no to a conference even if more travel is needed if it gets them into a conference.. especially a competitive one.
Personally, while I know the HCAC, OAC, and NCAC options don't seem realistic... that is where I think TMC heads unless something crazy happens and the SAA comes calling. I simply don't see DII working out (the costs alone aren't that great an option not to mention there isn't exactly any upside to the idea). TMC will find a home eventually... but they are going to have to suck up and deal with some challenges like travel to make it happen.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 15, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: pghome on August 15, 2017, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on August 15, 2017, 01:16:39 PM
Quote from: HOPEful on August 15, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2017, 10:10:54 AM
Thomas More tried to get into the HCAC for a long time and failed. I'd be surprised if enough personnel over there have changed over for there to be a change of heart. Not that long ago Mount St. Joseph pulled out of its rivalry football game with Thomas More, so I'd be surprised if there were less bad blood now.
It really feels like pulling out of the PAC was a knee jerk reaction. Even if it were deemed necessary, I would think a lot of leg work could/should have been done in advance. Now it appears as though it's OAC or Independent, and I don't see the OAC accepting TMC without dropping a member. Is it possible Wilmington would return to the HCAC if given the opportunity? Maybe. Is it possible TMC had some or all of these conversations prior to announcing leaving the PAC. Sure. But it seems like a lot of ducks to get in a row to avoid being an Independent and that the rumor mill would be spinning faster if there was already a plan in the works.
My feeling of the situation was that TMC left on their own, but would have been forced out shortly after if they hadn't. I am not sure this is a situation they were necessarily ready for. The only way I see TMC joining the OAC is if another member makes a move to the HCAC (the common thought he is Wilmington which I agree with). It's been hinted to me that some at Wilmington may want to go back to the HCAC but I am not sure where those who make those decisions stand on that. If none of those pieces move, TMC might be stuck in a rough spot with no where to go.
I'm really baffled by the idea that TMC didn't have a predetermined place to land when they announced they were leaving the PAC. Particularly since they asked the PAC to cut the normal 2 year waiting period down to 1. I figured they already knew where they were going. There were some rumors floating around that they might be moving up to DII.
Maybe now you are reading enough between the lines to understand what might have actually happened. Fifth alludes to it, but in the football room this has been discussed... the fact TMC left in less time than the 2 years usually required, didn't have a place to land, and now is rudderless is enough of a clue to see that maybe this wasn't really TMC's decision.
I know a recent article spins it that TMC was finally interested in going and made it sound like travel was one of the criteria. It is great spin. The travel equation was really from other conference members not interested in making the trip to TMC (especially to get their asses handed to them before heading home) than the other way around. Also, the women's basketball situation has left a very bitter taste in the mouth of a number of institutions in the PAC who were also getting their read ends handed to them on a regular basis. It all adds up pretty quick. The article has a lot of words that basically says nothing and certainly doesn't tell the true story going on.
Fifth alludes well that if TMC didn't leave on their own that they were probably going to get kicked out. I would take it a step further from what I have gathered and say this: TMC was going to leave the conference this summer whether they wanted to or not and no matter how the story was to be written. They could save face and make it seem like it was TMC's idea and the PAC wasn't getting in the way (nice compromise to help both parties) as was written ... or we were going to read a story about the PAC kicking TMC out. Conferences will do that from time to time... we don't have to go that far back in DIII history to see it.
We also know TMC absolutely danced with the MIAA recently, it just hasn't come together. I am not betting on it happening, but who knows. I don't think TMC is going to say no to a conference even if more travel is needed if it gets them into a conference.. especially a competitive one.
Personally, while I know the HCAC, OAC, and NCAC options don't seem realistic... that is where I think TMC heads unless something crazy happens and the SAA comes calling. I simply don't see DII working out (the costs alone aren't that great an option not to mention there isn't exactly any upside to the idea). TMC will find a home eventually... but they are going to have to suck up and deal with some challenges like travel to make it happen.
The only reason I left the NCAC off the table was Thomas More does not fit the institutional model of the other schools (all 10 current members are Phi Beta Kappa members). Unless the conference wanted to make an exception to bring in TMC, they're not going to the NCAC. I think it's the HCAC or OAC for TMC unless as Dave mentioned the SAA happens.
I simply wasn't leaving any options off the table at this point... at least that make sense. I mean, I don't see TMC in the AMCC, CAC, ODAC... but felt the NCAC should at least remain in the conversation on the off-chance it might happen. I don't disagree with the read on the conference and such... but who knows at this point.
The Division III basketball season has begun and tonight Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will hit the air for its 15th season!
In tonight's season premiere, Dave McHugh chats with the two preseason No. 1 teams, both national committee chairs, and gets an update on a new tournament featuring several Top 25 teams. Dave will also try and get everyone up to speed on the new season and take a look at what has already happened in early season games.
One thing fans may notice is no video for this season's debut. This is not a change in the production of the show, just a temporary decision. There has been a lot going on leading up to the premiere and not everything got up to speed in time. We hope to have actual video broadcasts return in short order. We appreciate everyone's patience.
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE staring at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/nov16 --- or via the Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville) simulcast. If you missed any part of the show, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcast.
You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.
Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Bobbi Morgan, Haverford women's coach and DIII National Basketball Committee Chair
- Tim Pitzpatrick, U.S. Coast Guard Academy Athletics Director and DIII National Basketball Committee Chair
- Eric Bridgeland, No. 1 Whitman men's coach
- Carla Berube, No. 1 Tufts women's coach
- Ryan Whitnabe, Great Lakes podcaster and Great Lakes Invitational creator
You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Hope will host the 2018 Great Lakes Invitational.
http://athletics.hope.edu/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20171118e8gbkg
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on November 18, 2017, 09:42:14 AM
Hope will host the 2018 Great Lakes Invitational.
http://athletics.hope.edu/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20171118e8gbkg
One of these schools is not like the others...
Also, why'd it go from 8 teams to 5? Are they still planning on adding teams? And how does Ohio factor in to the mix?
Quote from: HOPEful on November 30, 2017, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on November 18, 2017, 09:42:14 AM
Hope will host the 2018 Great Lakes Invitational.
http://athletics.hope.edu/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20171118e8gbkg
One of these schools is not like the others...
Also, why'd it go from 8 teams to 5? Are they still planning on adding teams? And how does Ohio factor in to the mix?
It's 4 teams not 5 - but it is a bit confusing the way it's written:
The 2018 field will include Hope College, Calvin College, Mount St. Joseph, Ohio University, and LaRoche, Pennsylvania College.which I believe is this:
The 2018 field will include:
Hope College
Calvin College
Mount St. Joseph, Ohio University
LaRoche, Pennsylvania College.
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on November 30, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Quote from: HOPEful on November 30, 2017, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on November 18, 2017, 09:42:14 AM
Hope will host the 2018 Great Lakes Invitational.
http://athletics.hope.edu/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20171118e8gbkg
One of these schools is not like the others...
Also, why'd it go from 8 teams to 5? Are they still planning on adding teams? And how does Ohio factor in to the mix?
It's 4 teams not 5 - but it is a bit confusing the way it's written:
The 2018 field will include Hope College, Calvin College, Mount St. Joseph, Ohio University, and LaRoche, Pennsylvania College.
which I believe is this:
The 2018 field will include:
Hope College
Calvin College
Mount St. Joseph, Ohio University
LaRoche, Pennsylvania College.
I'm not sure why Ohio University or Pennsylvania College was added to the release...it's just Hope, Calvin, MSJ, and La Roche.
Looks like an attempt to note that MSJ is in Ohio and LaRoche is in Pennsylvania gone horribly wrong.
Quote from: ziggy on November 30, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
Looks like an attempt to note that MSJ is in Ohio and LaRoche is in Pennsylvania gone horribly wrong.
Yeah. Mount St. Joseph University, Ohio and LaRoche College, Pennsylvania.
Quote from: ziggy on November 30, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
Looks like an attempt to note that MSJ is in Ohio and LaRoche is in Pennsylvania gone horribly wrong.
Ah, that make much more sense. I was perplexed by what the Bobcats would get out of such an appearance.
I'm a little disappointed though that it dropped from 8 teams down to 4. It's nice to see Mt. St. Joe and LaRoche coming to Holland, but it's basically just the Russ DeVette Classic with a different name, no?
LaRoche was 1-24 in 2015 and 20-8 in 2017. So kinda difficult to predict how they'll look on the schedule for Hope and Calvin next year.
Quote from: HOPEful on November 30, 2017, 09:57:14 AM
Quote from: ziggy on November 30, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
Looks like an attempt to note that MSJ is in Ohio and LaRoche is in Pennsylvania gone horribly wrong.
Ah, that make much more sense. I was perplexed by what the Bobcats would get out of such an appearance.
I'm a little disappointed though that it dropped from 8 teams down to 4. It's nice to see Mt. St. Joe and LaRoche coming to Holland, but it's basically just the Russ DeVette Classic with a different name, no?
As with any event, there are some challenges to overcome when trying to put together an event like this. Hope of course has a women's tip off tournament the opening weekend of the year and weekend #2 is the Grand Rapids event with Calvin, Cornerstone, and Aquinas. Most conferences start up conference play weekend #3...so we got brought into December. The effort was made to have an 8 team event at Hope..but with some conferences still playing conference games the 19th (OAC) and a lot of schools having no competition rules during finals week (some schools are having finals that week, some are finished) we arrived at the 4 teams we did.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on November 30, 2017, 10:03:12 AM
LaRoche was 1-24 in 2015 and 20-8 in 2017. So kinda difficult to predict how they'll look on the schedule for Hope and Calvin next year.
Unless La Roche has some unusual roster turnover between this year and next...I feel pretty good about La Roche heading into next year.
Great Lakes--Conference leaders/Pool C picture (6 losses and under is "ok", 7 and we're getting sketchy as a Pool C, I used 7 as a cutoff this week)
Record--team--W%/SOS--Games remaining against other leaders or PoolC's in parenthesis
I don't think we're to a point where we can "lock" anyone in, (next week probably), Red= SOS to low to warrant a Pool C slot or overall record below the .700 line ie currently out of position for a C
AMCC
16-3 PSU-Behrend .842/.446
14-5 LaRoche .737/.469
12-7 Medaille .632/.456
12-7 PSU-Altoona .632/.468
HCAC
13-4 Hanover .765/.489
13-6 Mt. St. Joseph .684/.514
13-6 Transylvania .684/.531
11-7 Rose-Hulman .611/.486
MIAA
12-5 Adrian .706/.442
9-7 Hope .563/.569
10-6 Olivet .625/505
NCAC
18-0 Wittenberg 1.000/.516
15-4 Wooster .789/578
14-5 Ohio Wesleyan .737/.543
12-7 Hiram .632/.568
OAC
15-4 Marietta .789/.575
15-4 John Carroll .789/.543
14-5 Baldwin Wallace .737/.552
13-6 Ohio Northern .684/550
PAC
14-4 Thomas More .778/.458
13-4 Westminster .765/.469
12-6 St. Vincent .667/.500
Looking at it this way, ranking 9 teams is going to be kind of interesting. I'd take the 6 teams not in red and Ohio Northern, after that maybe 2 HCAC teams?
I figure Wittenberg needs one more win to be a "lock". They can still lose 7 and that SOS is pretty shakey with 7 losses. So I'll hold off there.
Thanks for the information - I think Wittenberg having their last 3 games vs Ohio Wesleyan/Hiram/Wooster and most likely 2 of the 3 in the conference tournament will increase their strength of schedule and at most they may end up with 3 losses.
Here's what I've got at the moment (more info at http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)).
1) Wittenberg (18-0, 12-0 NCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.517 SOS)
2) Wooster (15-4, 9-3 NCAC, 0.789 WP, 0.578 SOS)
3) Marietta (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.575 SOS)
4) John Carroll (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.543 SOS)
5) Baldwin Wallace (14-5, 8-4 OAC, 0.737 WP, 0.552 SOS)
6) Ohio Wesleyan (14-5, 9-3 NCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.542 SOS)
7) Ohio Northern (13-6, 8-4 OAC, 0.684 WP, 0.548 SOS)
8) Transylvania (13-6, 8-4 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS)
9) Mount St. Joseph (13-6, 10-2 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.512 SOS)
----------
10) Hanover (13-4, 10-2 HCAC, 0.765 WP, 0.489 SOS)
11) Hiram (12-7, 8-4 NCAC, 0.632 WP, 0.568 SOS)
12) St. Vincent (12-6, 10-2 PAC, 0.667 WP, 0.499 SOS)
I look forward to all the Pool C discussion coming up over the next several weeks. February is nearly here. Thanks for all the information guys.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 28, 2018, 09:39:04 PM
I look forward to all the Pool C discussion coming up over the next several weeks. February is nearly here. Thanks for all the information guys.
Teams and Poll C debates
usually start to sort themselves out as February comes and goes but, at this point, I agree, the Great Lakes supporters will be able to have some passionate discussions.
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 28, 2018, 09:10:05 PM
Here's what I've got at the moment (more info at http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)).
1) Wittenberg (18-0, 12-0 NCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.517 SOS)
2) Wooster (15-4, 9-3 NCAC, 0.789 WP, 0.578 SOS)
3) Marietta (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.575 SOS)
4) John Carroll (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.543 SOS)
5) Baldwin Wallace (14-5, 8-4 OAC, 0.737 WP, 0.552 SOS)
6) Ohio Wesleyan (14-5, 9-3 NCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.542 SOS)
7) Ohio Northern (13-6, 8-4 OAC, 0.684 WP, 0.548 SOS)
8) Transylvania (13-6, 8-4 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS)
9) Mount St. Joseph (13-6, 10-2 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.512 SOS)
----------
10) Hanover (13-4, 10-2 HCAC, 0.765 WP, 0.489 SOS)
11) Hiram (12-7, 8-4 NCAC, 0.632 WP, 0.568 SOS)
12) St. Vincent (12-6, 10-2 PAC, 0.667 WP, 0.499 SOS)
I would flop 4 and 3 and not because I am a JCU homer (but I am) . . . I think the 2-0 record head-to-head gives Carroll the edge despite the weaker SOS. Of course, you could also argue to flop 4 and 5 for the same reason. The OAC, in some ways, has a lot of game to play, but the three at the top only have one game between each other left -- BW v JCU on 2/7.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on January 29, 2018, 09:10:19 AM
I would flop 4 and 5 and not because I am a JCU homer (but I am) . . . I think the 2-0 record head-to-head gives Carroll the edge despite the weaker SOS.
No argument there. My system does not consider head-to-head results, but that certainly will be a factor in the regional committee's discussions.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on January 29, 2018, 09:10:19 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 28, 2018, 09:10:05 PM
Here's what I've got at the moment (more info at http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)).
1) Wittenberg (18-0, 12-0 NCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.517 SOS)
2) Wooster (15-4, 9-3 NCAC, 0.789 WP, 0.578 SOS)
3) Marietta (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.575 SOS)
4) John Carroll (15-4, 9-3 OAC, 0.789 WP, 0.543 SOS)
5) Baldwin Wallace (14-5, 8-4 OAC, 0.737 WP, 0.552 SOS)
6) Ohio Wesleyan (14-5, 9-3 NCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.542 SOS)
7) Ohio Northern (13-6, 8-4 OAC, 0.684 WP, 0.548 SOS)
8) Transylvania (13-6, 8-4 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS)
9) Mount St. Joseph (13-6, 10-2 HCAC, 0.684 WP, 0.512 SOS)
----------
10) Hanover (13-4, 10-2 HCAC, 0.765 WP, 0.489 SOS)
11) Hiram (12-7, 8-4 NCAC, 0.632 WP, 0.568 SOS)
12) St. Vincent (12-6, 10-2 PAC, 0.667 WP, 0.499 SOS)
I would flop 4 and 5 and not because I am a JCU homer (but I am) . . . I think the 2-0 record head-to-head gives Carroll the edge despite the weaker SOS.
I assume you mean 3 and 4, right?
I corrected myself in my post above but, yes, I meant 3 and 4 with the disclaimer that BW could make the same argument about 4 and 5.
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2018, 02:09:02 PM
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
You really want to believe in Marietta, don't you? I do not get it as they are not the same team they have been in years past during their impressive run from after-thought to regional power over the past decade. That said, they are 1-3 against those two teams with two of those losses at home. If you want to weight SOS that much, that is understandable but I simply cannot give them the nod when I have watched them 7 times this season.
I actually hope that the cannibalization in the league stops and we are able to sneak three teams in again as we did a few years ago. I think if everyone wins out and JCU beats BW (and one of those three wins the tournament - no promises there), we could be in position to do just that with a little help.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on January 29, 2018, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2018, 02:09:02 PM
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
You really want to believe in Marietta, don't you? I do not get it as they are not the same team they have been in years past during their impressive run from after-thought to regional power over the past decade. That said, they are 1-3 against those two teams with two of those losses at home. If you want to weight SOS that much, that is understandable but I simply cannot give them the nod when I have watched them 7 times this season.
I actually hope that the cannibalization in the league stops and we are able to sneak three teams in again as we did a few years ago. I think if everyone wins out and JCU beats BW (and one of those three wins the tournament - no promises there), we could be in position to do just that with a little help.
Marietta is a good team this year, but something just hasn't quite clicked this year and I can't put my finger on it. They've showed flashes of what their ceiling is, but even in a lot of their wins I walked away feeling like they could of and should of played better. I agree that JCU at this point should be ahead of Marietta on any regional ranking, they got the season sweep over the Pioneers. On the flip side, Marietta won in Berea and if not for a desperation heave that banked in at Ban Johnson..Marietta would have the sweep of the Jackets.
I'd probably go:
1. Witt
2. Wooster
3. JCU These 3 are EXTREMELY close in resumes
4. Marietta
5. BW
6. OWU
7. ONU
8. Transy
9. Hanover (I think the head to head victory here slots Hanover over MSJ for now)
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2018, 02:09:02 PM
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
Clearly you are using the official - how did they do vs. Hope this year index :) Sorry I had to interject that since it may be the closest Hope gets to being involved in Regional Ranking discussions this year.
I think you could arrange those three in any order and make a decent argument...
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on January 29, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2018, 02:09:02 PM
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
Clearly you are using the official - how did they do vs. Hope this year index :) Sorry I had to interject that since it may be the closest Hope gets to being involved in Regional Ranking discussions this year.
I think you could arrange those three in any order and make a decent argument...
Well, I started the year with eye test - then the results made that difficult to justify and now I'm sort of back to the eye test with results that make me a little more secure. I'm not super confident in that position.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 29, 2018, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on January 29, 2018, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2018, 02:09:02 PM
Personally, I've got it Marietta, BW, JCU right now, although I think ONU is better than they've shown just yet. This week should be interesting.
You really want to believe in Marietta, don't you? I do not get it as they are not the same team they have been in years past during their impressive run from after-thought to regional power over the past decade. That said, they are 1-3 against those two teams with two of those losses at home. If you want to weight SOS that much, that is understandable but I simply cannot give them the nod when I have watched them 7 times this season.
I actually hope that the cannibalization in the league stops and we are able to sneak three teams in again as we did a few years ago. I think if everyone wins out and JCU beats BW (and one of those three wins the tournament - no promises there), we could be in position to do just that with a little help.
Marietta is a good team this year, but something just hasn't quite clicked this year and I can't put my finger on it. They've showed flashes of what their ceiling is, but even in a lot of their wins I walked away feeling like they could of and should of played better. I agree that JCU at this point should be ahead of Marietta on any regional ranking, they got the season sweep over the Pioneers. On the flip side, Marietta won in Berea and if not for a desperation heave that banked in at Ban Johnson..Marietta would have the sweep of the Jackets.
I'd probably go:
1. Witt
2. Wooster
3. JCU These 3 are EXTREMELY close in resumes
4. Marietta
5. BW
6. OWU
7. ONU
8. Transy
9. Hanover (I think the head to head victory here slots Hanover over MSJ for now)
Great point about the near season-sweep of BW. Like I hinted at earlier, it would certainly be best for everyone's resume if the upsets stopped and the only losses anyone suffers from among the top 4 - BW, JCU, ONU and Etta - are to each other.
I probably need to get some more face time in with these teams. I saw both Marietta losses at home - to JCU and BW and just watching them, it felt to me like Marietta was still the better team, even if they didn't execute well enough to win those games. At some point in the season, though, failure to execute has to factor in. The trouble comes with these other losses, as you said - if it were just the top four, that would be one thing, but the results vs the rest of the conference jumble everything up.
Great Lakes--Conference leaders/Pool C picture (6 losses and under is "ok", 7 and we're getting sketchy as a Pool C, I used 7 as a cutoff this week)
Record--team--W%/SOS--Games remaining against other leaders or PoolC's in parenthesis
I don't think we're to a point where we can "lock" anyone in, (next week probably), Red= SOS to low to warrant a Pool C slot or overall record below the .700 line ie currently out of position for a C
AMCC
18-3 PSU-Behrend .857/.442
16-5 LaRoche .762/.463
14-7 PSU-Altoona .667/.455
HCAC
14-5 Hanover .737/.495
15-6 Transylvania .714/.513
14-7 Mt. St. Joseph .667/.506
13-7 Rose-Hulman .650/.494
MIAA
14-5 Adrian .737/.442
11-7 Hope .611/.552
12-6 Olivet .667/.484
NCAC
20-0 Wittenberg 1.000/.509
17-4 Wooster .810/566
15-6 Ohio Wesleyan .714/.536
OAC
17-4 John Carroll .810/.522
16-5 Marietta .762/.567
15-6 Ohio Northern .714/549
15-6 Baldwin Wallace .714/.541
PAC
16-4 Thomas More .800/.460
14-5 Westminster .737/.451
13-7 St. Vincent .650/.502
I removed Medaille and Hiram, both picked up their 8th and 9th losses.
Big winner this week was probably Ohio Northern who at least played themselves back into the Pool C picture.
Wednesday is first ranking day.....
-----Question for #2 and #3, JCU or Wooster. Wooster appears to have the upper hand, but without looking at Head-to-heads yet I'm not sure.
-----pick your order between BW, OWU and ONU for 5,6,7
-----8, 9 I think it might get odd Behrend probably ought to be ranked but that SOS, woof. So we're back to two HCAC teams and the odd part might be Hanover and Transylvania being slotted in ahead of conference leader Rose-Hulman
You're realistic Pool C candidates are only Wittenberg, Marietta, John Carroll and Wooster at the moment.
I think Wooster is a clear #2 over JCU.
I'll go ONU, BW, and OWU for 5,6, and 7.
Hanover and MSJ were 8 and 9 before the week started. I am guessing Transylvania slides into one of those last slots...I'd go Transy 8 and Hanover 9.
Rose-Hulman probably are kicking themselves. A 1-6 start to the year pretty much wrecked their resume before we even got to the holidays. Shame because they are 13-1 since.
With a .442 SOS, you'd be better be 21-0 or 20-1 to even think about getting ranked. That's a seriously low SOS. I don't think they make the slate.
How I think they come out:
1. Witt
2. Woo
3. JCU
4. Etta
5. ONU
6. BW
7. OWU
8. Transy
9. Hanover
I also think that Wooster is clearly #2. Marietta & JCU could go either way at #3 and #4, and the next three are all comparable, but I would put all four OAC teams ahead of OWU.
1) Wittenberg (20-0, 14-0 NCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.508 SOS)
2) Wooster (17-4, 11-3 NCAC, 0.810 WP, 0.566 SOS)
3) Marietta (16-5, 10-4 OAC, 0.762 WP, 0.567 SOS)
4) John Carroll (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.523 SOS)
5) Ohio Northern (15-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.714 WP, 0.551 SOS)
6) Baldwin Wallace (15-6, 9-5 OAC, 0.714 WP, 0.541 SOS)
7) Ohio Wesleyan (15-6, 10-4 NCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.536 SOS)
8) Transylvania (15-6, 10-4 HCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.512 SOS)
9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.495 SOS)
----------
10) Mount St. Joseph (14-7, 11-3 HCAC, 0.667 WP, 0.508 SOS)
11) Hope (11-7, 7-3 MIAA, 0.611 WP, 0.552 SOS)
12) Thomas More (16-4, 13-1 PAC, 0.800 WP, 0.466 SOS)
More details... http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg.html)
JCU should most definitely be ahead of Marietta with a 2-0 head-to-head.
Quote from: sac on February 04, 2018, 10:27:37 PM
JCU should most definitely be ahead of Marietta with a 2-0 head-to-head.
With the head-to-head sweep, I'll give you that. I need to get head-to-head results included in my analysis.
The big game is over, so now it's time to focus only on basketball. Division III basketball to be exact.
Join Dave and a number of guests on this special Monday edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com). There is plenty to talk about including another crazy weekend of results that will have Top 25 voters scratching their heads and maybe pulling hair off their head as well. Plus, the first regional rankings come out later this week. While predictions are hard, there at least will be some reminding of how this all works.
And maybe even a preview of what this evening's Top 25s look like.
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show starting at 2:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2FOQ7hX
If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media.
Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Marc Edwards, No. 2 WashU men's coach
- Chris Harvey, Salem State men's coach
- Bill Fenlon, DePauw men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
- Caitlin Hadzimichalis, King's women's coach
- Cameron Hill, Trinity (Texas), women's coach
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D3otcl%2F4jqbajxp1927q4lt.jpg&hash=548f21c8fc71f3b507fa66bfd6193b90a937d497)
Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected. That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.
Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:
(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.
he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion.
That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1) the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762) and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0).
Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.
Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics.
I am understanding the evaluation process properly? This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 05, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected. That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.
Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:
(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.
he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion.
That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1) the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762) and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0).
Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.
Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics.
I am understanding the evaluation process properly? This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.
This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 05, 2018, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 05, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected. That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.
Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:
(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.
he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion.
That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1) the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762) and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0).
Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.
Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics.
I am understanding the evaluation process properly? This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.
This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).
Great point. A few weeks ago, I was hopeful that a Pool A bid from either BW-JCU-Etta might result in the other two getting Poll C bids. That was dependent on no one getting upset along the way by teams outside of that triumvirate. Well, BW lost a few times, Etta was upset and JCU dropped one to Muskingum so that is out the window at this point and ONU is back in the conversation. Three bids seems unlikely. Maybe if JCU and Etta win out with a loss by one in the semis and a loss by the other in the semifinals as that would give someone else the OAC Pool A and JCU and Etta would still have good to very good Pool C resumes.
Should be a fun couple weeks.
One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.
And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder ;) )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.
One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
Yet without Week 1 rankings, we could not have vRRO in Week 2. We don't see it until next week, but the stone actually starts rolling here.
Quote from: monsoon on February 05, 2018, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
Yet without Week 1 rankings, we could not have vRRO in Week 2. We don't see it until next week, but the stone actually starts rolling here.
Yep... this helps us get a glimpse of what the committees are thinking, processing, etc. Week 2 finally kind of gives us a guide as to how things will probably shake out.
Week 1 also gives us a chance to make sure there are no errors. :)
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 05, 2018, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 05, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected. That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.
Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:
(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.
he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion.
That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1) the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762) and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0).
Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.
Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics.
I am understanding the evaluation process properly? This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.
This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).
I think you are correct on that. The only way I see JCU pulling ahead of Etta (but not earning the Poll A) would be to win their next 6 beating Etta in the semis and then losing the OAC final to someone else. I think that would give them the better resume even it Etta wins its next 5. That said, I think Etta has a much better chance to win out than JCU as this weeks BW game followed by a roadie to ONU will be a tall order.
Both Marietta and JCU have to go to ONU still...that's a tough barn to play in.
ONU still has Pool C aspirations in my mind..all their difficult games left are at home. They win out and win a couple home games in the OAC Tournament and they very well could play their way back on to the good side of the bubble.
There's only 4 regular season games left, but it's still so much basketball left to be played. A lot of scenarios are still on the table.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 06, 2018, 10:05:01 AM
Both Marietta and JCU have to go to ONU still...that's a tough barn to play in.
ONU still has Pool C aspirations in my mind..all their difficult games left are at home. They win out and win a couple home games in the OAC Tournament and they very well could play their way back on to the good side of the bubble.
There's only 4 regular season games left, but it's still so much basketball left to be played. A lot of scenarios are still on the table.
I always thought that the trip to ONU from just about every other league school, save Heidelberg, is a rough one as it is so remote. Whether you are two hours away or 4 hours away, you feel like you have traveled to nowhere and back. The trip from Etta has to be a real b%$@#. I would not be surprised if either or both of us dropped that one. We just need to avoid losses in our other three games.
Last year JCU played their way right out of the tournament with some bad losses down the stretch including being upset in the regular season final and the first round of the OAC. They win those two and they would have been a candidate for a Pool C; instead, they collected the jerseys. JCU call ill-afford another Musky or Mount like loss this season and Etta is in the same boat.
Men's first regional rankings this season: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-first
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.
And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder ;) )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.
One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.
Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents? I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 08, 2018, 08:35:44 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.
And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder ;) )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.
One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.
Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents? I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure.
It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2018, 08:37:06 AM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 08, 2018, 08:35:44 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.
We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.
SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.
And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder ;) )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.
One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.
Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents? I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure.
It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.
Thanks, Ryan.
Impossible to consider them against the current week's rankings considering they are ranking teams prior to those second week rankings coming out... so they only refer to the previous week's rankings. As Ryan said, the only time that changes is the very, very last ranking done only by the national committee.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2018, 08:37:06 AM
It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.
Which is insane since the second-to-last rankings also "count" but they themselves don't include all of the primary criteria.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2018, 08:37:06 AM
It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.
Which is insane since the second-to-last rankings also "count" but they themselves don't include all of the primary criteria.
That isn't true... they all include primary criteria except the very first rankings.
That is why they got rid of the once-ranked, always-ranked because Week 1 didn't have all the criteria.
And Week 2 will count to set-up the final rankings, but the final rankings will only include Week 3 and Week 4 (the RAC's rankings, before they are done over one last time for the national committee).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2018, 08:37:06 AM
It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.
Which is insane since the second-to-last rankings also "count" but they themselves don't include all of the primary criteria.
That isn't true... they all include primary criteria except the very first rankings.
That is why they got rid of the once-ranked, always-ranked because Week 1 didn't have all the criteria.
And Week 2 will count to set-up the final rankings, but the final rankings will only include Week 3 and Week 4 (the RAC's rankings, before they are done over one last time for the national committee).
Sorry, meant to say it isn't based on actually correct data. Week 3's RROs are based on Week 2's actuals (for the sake of ease, not rigor). Week 4's RROs are iterated to be based on themselves. So, we'll be getting echos of the Week 2, 3, and 4 rankings in those final rankings.
This will tend to help the schools from the more prominent conferences that have the ability to shuffle 4-5 teams through the rankings these last four weeks. And those conferences tend to get higher number of RRO games in the first place. (CCIW, WIAC, NESCAC, etc.)
A quick glance at some of the RRO data from somewhere else on this site and John Carroll looks pretty rock solid to remain ahead of Marietta 4-1 v RRO to Marietta 3-4. Plus the 2-0 head-to-head It might take a couple JCU losses to change that.
I think the big question is what happens to Wooster if they lose to Witt next week and/or OWU this weekend. Its a question of are they first GL team at the the table or the last one.
Witt, Wooster, JCU and Marietta are really the only true C candidates from this region. ONU might be able to play their way into contention but I think they probably have to beat both Marietta and JCU and probably make the OAC Championship game.
OWU and BW were on the ropes last night and probably took knock out blows with their losses.
To be clear... Week 4's start with Week 2 and Week 3 data.. .that's where the RACs rank for the national committee. The national committee makes adjustments and finalizes those rankings. The vRRO is run one more time (which eliminates Week 2's vRRO numbers) and the national committee makes any final adjustments needed. So, Week 4 does include Week 2 to start and always includes Week 3.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2018, 01:35:48 PM
To be clear... Week 4's start with Week 2 and Week 3 data.. .that's where the RACs rank for the national committee. The national committee makes adjustments and finalizes those rankings. The vRRO is run one more time (which eliminates Week 2's vRRO numbers) and the national committee makes any final adjustments needed. So, Week 4 does include Week 2 to start and always includes Week 3.
And Week 3 always includes Week 2 which means Week 4 never fully separates from Week 2 data, even after running the vRRO again (the vRROs themselves won't show up but the fringe spots in the rankings include the Week 2 vRROs in the decision making process).
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2018, 01:21:57 PM
A quick glance at some of the RRO data from somewhere else on this site and John Carroll looks pretty rock solid to remain ahead of Marietta 4-1 v RRO to Marietta 3-4. Plus the 2-0 head-to-head It might take a couple JCU losses to change that.
I think the big question is what happens to Wooster if they lose to Witt next week and/or OWU this weekend. Its a question of are they first GL team at the the table or the last one.
Witt, Wooster, JCU and Marietta are really the only true C candidates from this region. ONU might be able to play their way into contention but I think they probably have to beat both Marietta and JCU and probably make the OAC Championship game.
OWU and BW were on the ropes last night and probably took knock out blows with their losses.
At the end of the day, I think the top four all get comfortably, even if we were to see a surprise conference tournament winner.
ONU or B-W could get to the bubble by finishing the regular season strong and then reaching the OAC final. OWU probably needs to win two more big games out of three (at Wooster, vs Witt, and a potential tourney semi against Wooster) to have a decent Pool C chance.
We can argue over who ought to be #8 and #9 right now, but the Heartland and MIAA will be one-bid leagues this year, so those spots matter only for other teams' vRRO numbers.
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2018, 01:21:57 PM
A quick glance at some of the RRO data from somewhere else on this site and John Carroll looks pretty rock solid to remain ahead of Marietta 4-1 v RRO to Marietta 3-4. Plus the 2-0 head-to-head It might take a couple JCU losses to change that.
I think the big question is what happens to Wooster if they lose to Witt next week and/or OWU this weekend. Its a question of are they first GL team at the the table or the last one.
Witt, Wooster, JCU and Marietta are really the only true C candidates from this region. ONU might be able to play their way into contention but I think they probably have to beat both Marietta and JCU and probably make the OAC Championship game.
OWU and BW were on the ropes last night and probably took knock out blows with their losses.
I think if ONU rattles off 5 in a row and loses in the OAC title game to either JCU or Etta (which would reduce the chances that it is a bid thief), they will have a decent Pool C resume. That argument is strengthened by the fact that those 5 wins would contain 2, maybe 3 wins against RRO.
BW and OWU must win their conference tourney games, at this point, to see NCAA action.
As for JCU, I thought we were in good shape last year . . .then we lost to Capital to end the regular season and were upset by Musky three days later.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 08, 2018, 02:05:30 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2018, 01:21:57 PM
A quick glance at some of the RRO data from somewhere else on this site and John Carroll looks pretty rock solid to remain ahead of Marietta 4-1 v RRO to Marietta 3-4. Plus the 2-0 head-to-head It might take a couple JCU losses to change that.
I think the big question is what happens to Wooster if they lose to Witt next week and/or OWU this weekend. Its a question of are they first GL team at the the table or the last one.
Witt, Wooster, JCU and Marietta are really the only true C candidates from this region. ONU might be able to play their way into contention but I think they probably have to beat both Marietta and JCU and probably make the OAC Championship game.
OWU and BW were on the ropes last night and probably took knock out blows with their losses.
At the end of the day, I think the top four all get comfortably, even if we were to see a surprise conference tournament winner.
ONU or B-W could get to the bubble by finishing the regular season strong and then reaching the OAC final. OWU probably needs to win two more big games out of three (at Wooster, vs Witt, and a potential tourney semi against Wooster) to have a decent Pool C chance.
We can argue over who ought to be #8 and #9 right now, but the Heartland and MIAA will be one-bid leagues this year, so those spots matter only for other teams' vRRO numbers.
I agree with everything you are saying, except as to BW. I do no think they can build a good enough Pool C resume even with 5 straight wins and a loss in the OAC final.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 08, 2018, 02:44:01 PM
I agree with everything you are saying, except as to BW. I do no think they can build a good enough Pool C resume even with 5 straight wins and a loss in the OAC final.
In that case, BW would be 20-8 (WP .714), and my sims on that scenario show an average SOS of .560, and 3-5 vRRO (plus a .577 ncSOS), which looks like a solid resume; I have them at about 90% to get in under that scenario. If Marietta were to finish 2-1 and then fall in the OAC semis, the Pioneers would be 20-7 and potentially have similar numbers (.741 / .569 / 3-5) in the other categories. That resume looks good enough unless the "bid thieves" have a huge year, bursting bubbles all over the place.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 08, 2018, 03:14:40 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 08, 2018, 02:44:01 PM
I agree with everything you are saying, except as to BW. I do no think they can build a good enough Pool C resume even with 5 straight wins and a loss in the OAC final.
In that case, BW would be 20-8 (WP .714), and my sims on that scenario show an average SOS of .560, and 3-5 vRRO (plus a .577 ncSOS), which looks like a solid resume; I have them at about 90% to get in under that scenario. If Marietta were to finish 2-1 and then fall in the OAC semis, the Pioneers would be 20-7 and potentially have similar numbers (.741 / .569 / 3-5) in the other categories. That resume looks good enough unless the "bid thieves" have a huge year, bursting bubbles all over the place.
Well . . . I cannot argue with that math and analysis, professor. Well done, as usual.
Well, fan50, BW did what they needed to do with the win. I am assuming you're still projecting BW to have a strong Pool C resume if they win 4 more and lose in the OAC title game. How do they look if they win 3 in a row and lose in the semis?
How about Northern? Can they keep dreams of a Pool C alive with a loss in the semis or will it take 4 in a row (including saturday's game against Etta)?
Semi-final losses to "bubbly teams" is usually not good enough.
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2018, 01:25:19 PM
Semi-final losses to "bubbly teams" is usually not good enough.
True. The only thing I was thinking, thought, was that, for ONU, those three straight wins would include a victory over Etta on Saturday. Of course, I was not too confident in either BW or ONU's chance to earn a Pool C until Fantastic50 showed the numbers.
I think both BW and ONU are probably in win the AQ or nothing mode. Their C chances look pretty slim, albeit with lots that can happen. Maybe if one of them can get to the final they'd improve their position enough.
Next loss is #8 for either with ok but not outstanding SOS.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:29:16 AM
Well, fan50, BW did what they needed to do with the win. I am assuming you're still projecting BW to have a strong Pool C resume if they win 4 more and lose in the OAC title game. How do they look if they win 3 in a row and lose in the semis?
How about Northern? Can they keep dreams of a Pool C alive with a loss in the semis or will it take 4 in a row (including saturday's game against Etta)?
If BW wins out except for the final, I am showing .714/.562/4-5 (93% for a Pool C berth). I can't as readily run the numbers on a semifinal loss, but my guess is that they would be a bubble team (provided they won the rest up to that point).
For ONU, the numbers would be 714/.544/4-5 (54% for Pool C); the issue for them is that they could have as few as 2 wins vRRO, depending on who else is regionally ranked at the end. It seems to me that a lot of help would be required for the Polar Bears to get in without reaching the OAC final.
Current season-to-date numbers on this region show it tightening up more than I expected after Witt's loss at Hiram.
(Through Sunday's games)
Witt .955/.513/3-0
Woo .826/.556/5-1
JCU .826/.536/5-1
Etta .783/.562/3-4
My formula suggests the order should be Woo, Witt, Marietta, JCU, with very little separation among them all, but that doesn't consider the head-to-head results.
After the head-to-head results are included, I think that the top four will be unchanged from last week: Witt #1, Woo #2, Etta #3, JCU #4. However, they are all close enough that any of the four could be the final regional #1, two weeks from now.
If Witt gets two wins over OWU and Wooster this week they'd be #1 next week by a pretty wide margin.
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2018, 05:51:48 PM
If Witt gets two wins over OWU and Wooster this week they'd be #1 next week by a pretty wide margin.
Agreed. If Witt takes care of business this week, I don't think anyone can catch them, regardless of how the NCAC & OAC tournaments turn out.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2018, 05:51:48 PM
If Witt gets two wins over OWU and Wooster this week they'd be #1 next week by a pretty wide margin.
Agreed. If Witt takes care of business this week, I don't think anyone can catch them, regardless of how the NCAC & OAC tournaments turn out.
This is definitely Witt's region to lose. The only want I see Wooster or JCU catching them is by winning out in combination with dropping at least one regular season game and an NCAC tournament game. Even if they drop both this week and then win the NCAC (presumably with a victory over Wooster), I would have to imagine their numbers would still be better. I see a path for Etta to overtake Wooster and JCU if the cards fall right for them but I do not see them catching Witt.
Week 2 Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-second
I would say 7, 8, and 9 are pretty soft rankings with little chance of ever making it to the table. "Filler" if you will.
Hope popping into the ranking is probably a neutral for JCU, positives for Marietta, BW and the WIAC's Platteville, Stevens Point.
Possibility maybe that OWU drops out after this week, maybe even Hiram? That might make Wooster less appealing as the #2
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2018, 05:51:48 PM
If Witt gets two wins over OWU and Wooster this week they'd be #1 next week by a pretty wide margin.
Could Wooster make a claim with two wins this week?
I'm interested to see how Witt responds to their first loss of the season. OWU at the Branch won't be an easy win and if they lose tonight, they'd be looking at a 2 game losing streak going into their showdown with Wooster in the season finale.
Quote from: sac on February 14, 2018, 02:55:08 PM
I would say 7, 8, and 9 are pretty soft rankings with little chance of ever making it to the table. "Filler" if you will.
Hope popping into the ranking is probably a neutral for JCU, positives for Marietta, BW and the WIAC's Platteville, Stevens Point.
Possibility maybe that OWU drops out after this week, maybe even Hiram? That might make Wooster less appealing as the #2
My guess is that either OWU or Hiram stays in after this week, but not both. With non-conference victories over Brockport and Emory & Henry (and currently unranked Hanover) plus sweeps of both Hiram & OWU), Wooster has plenty of wins vs RRO, so I think they stay #2 next week with a loss. However, the Scots may need to beat Witt once, either Saturday or in the NCAC tourney final, to stay ahead of the OAC champ (if it's JCU or Marietta) in the final regional rankings.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2018, 05:51:48 PM
If Witt gets two wins over OWU and Wooster this week they'd be #1 next week by a pretty wide margin.
Agreed. If Witt takes care of business this week, I don't think anyone can catch them, regardless of how the NCAC & OAC tournaments turn out.
Wittenberg 80
Ohio Wesleyan 85
So, that probably helps solidify OWU's rankings spot and weakens Witt's hold on the top slot...elsewhere:
Denison 78
Hiram 60
Seems like a nail-in-the-coffin loss for Hiram's ability to stay in the rankings.
Are we to the point where Witt, Woo, JCU, and Marietta all are locked in regardless of what happens the rest of the way and everyone else is fighting for Pool A spots?
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 15, 2018, 10:35:14 AM
Are we to the point where Witt, Woo, JCU, and Marietta all are locked in regardless of what happens the rest of the way and everyone else is fighting for Pool A spots?
What is ONU rattles off three in a row and loses in the OAC title game? That would be a decent resume, no? Those three wins would include two RRO (Etta Saturday and either JCU or Etta in the semifinals) and (with a loss in the OAC title game) leave them with a record of 20-8 overall and vRRO of maybe 4-5.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 15, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 15, 2018, 10:35:14 AM
Are we to the point where Witt, Woo, JCU, and Marietta all are locked in regardless of what happens the rest of the way and everyone else is fighting for Pool A spots?
What is ONU rattles off three in a row and loses in the OAC title game? That would be a decent resume, no? Those three wins would include two RRO (Etta Saturday and either JCU or Etta in the semifinals) and (with a loss in the OAC title game) leave them with a record of 20-8 overall and vRRO of maybe 4-5.
I still think they'd be a long shot. Fantastic50 has ONU at 5% to get in. They'd need a lot of chalk to help out.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 15, 2018, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 15, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 15, 2018, 10:35:14 AM
Are we to the point where Witt, Woo, JCU, and Marietta all are locked in regardless of what happens the rest of the way and everyone else is fighting for Pool A spots?
What is ONU rattles off three in a row and loses in the OAC title game? That would be a decent resume, no? Those three wins would include two RRO (Etta Saturday and either JCU or Etta in the semifinals) and (with a loss in the OAC title game) leave them with a record of 20-8 overall and vRRO of maybe 4-5.
I still think they'd be a long shot. Fantastic50 has ONU at 5% to get in. They'd need a lot of chalk to help out.
I agree with that 5% if the games go according to projections which would have them going, I assume, 1-2 in their next 3. My assumption, a longshot but not improbable by any means, would have them going 3-1 in their next 4 with a win over Etta and JCU (or two over Etta).
Regardless, that is an unlikely scenario but I have seen stranger in the OAC tourney.
ONU going 3-1, ie losing in the OAC title game, would get them a decent resume but probably not good enough for this year
Quote from: sac on February 15, 2018, 12:47:03 PM
ONU going 3-1, ie losing in the OAC title game, would get them a decent resume but probably not good enough for this year
I think you're right. Life is about timing.
After running the numbers, it appears a Pool C bid isn't yet out of the question for the the second-tier OAC teams, but (as others suggested) they would need help from others and the selection committee, in addition to winning out except for the OAC final.
28% B-W (19-9) .679 / .563 / 4-5
27% ONU (20-8) .714 / .544 / 3-5
OWU and MSJ appear to be out of the running, even with a nice win for the Bishops last night.
As for the region's top four, Marietta could use one more win as insurance, but they all look fairly solid even if they lose their remaining games.
100% Wittenberg (21-4) .840 / .524 / 3-2
99% Wooster (20-6) .769 / .557 / 3-2
98% John Carroll (20-6) .769 / .535 / 5-1
93% Marietta (19-7) .731 / .557 / 2-5
It is my prediction that the Wooster-Wittenberg victor will be ranked #1 in the region next week, but could lose that perch in the final rankings, depending on the NCAC tournament outcome.
As the regular season draws ever closer to the end, the intensity of conference races increases. There are very few teams in both the men's and women's side of Division III basketball that seem comfortable at the top. With conference tournaments starting, being at the top is important, but it also comes with a big target.
This Thursday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is a special podcast edition - not live.
On the show, Dave talks to several coaches who teams seem like they have wrapped up their conferences races and one who may not be able to take the top spot, but is in great position to win it all their first time in the league.
We also talk to a coach who has more time than it seems anyone else. How she is using that time to help her school's SAAC in many ways and how that help is allowing the student-athletes at Southern Maine to give back to the school, the community, and many more.
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can listen to this week's podcast here: http://bit.ly/2EtvKH0
If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues.
A reminder, Hoopsville will return to live shows on Sunday, February 18, starting at 7:00 p.m. ET.
Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Pete Moran, No. 18 John Carroll men's coach
- Allison Coleman, Sage women's coach
- Samantha Allen, Southern Maine women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
- Trevor Woodruff, No. 13 Scranton women's coach
To get access to all the podcasts during the season, there are three ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.psbin.com%2Fi%2F5%2Fvz58th1jnqkn9i%2FHoopsville-2-15-18.jpg&hash=064980f1454ccae422d001087d4a4d5a40b23fe3)
The OAC, MIAA and HCAC all end up in ties. The NCAC was a whisker away from a tie, the PAC was tied going into yesterday before Bethany's loss. And I don't know if anyone followed how the AMCC finished but LaRoche had a one game lead last weekend and lost a game only to have PSU Behrend lose to the last place team in the league on the same day.
Pretty wild year around the Region.
The final week of the 2017-18 season is upon us. In a week's time, the topic will be who has punched their tickets to the NCAA tournaments and who is hoping to get selected. This week... we don't know many of the answers and some questions have yet to be considered.
url=http://www.d3hoopsville.com]Hoopsville[/url] returns to the air LIVE this Sunday night with a jam-packed, and super-sized, edition. Dave welcomes guests from around the country and looks at a lot of the conference tournaments which are getting underway. Can some of the top teams take advantage of home-court advantage? Who may surprise? Who do some NOT want to see lose if they hope to make the tournament themselves?
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2EyN7G9
If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues located to the right.
Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Tom Glynn, Nichols men's coach
- Anne Crutchfield, Emory & Henry women's coach
- Kevin Broderick, Nazareth men's coach
- Zach Otto-Fisher, UW-Superior interim women's coach
- Jon Prevo, No. 24 Rose-Hulman women's coach
- Brendan Gulick, Baldwin Wallace broadcaster (Great Lakes recap)
- Ryan Scott, "Top 25 Double-take"
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4d99w%2Fxi30otvz7gow1bon.jpg&hash=e9669b02c4d9e5d090b49c897acada4a3f2fd336)
Anyone with Pool C aspirations around the country are hoping for an Etta-JCU final in the OAC Tournament and a Witt-Woo final in the NCAC Tournament. It would seem those four schools have a pretty good handle on an NCAA bid regardless of outcomes so to have some other school with the OAC or the NCAC would mean less Pool Cs to go around.
The NCAA men's basketball regional advisory committees released their third set of rankings, and as expected, the Atlantic Region was among those getting shuffled. Here's the full list: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-third
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D600%2Fmh%3D600%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4ima3%2Fdinflo07zg1qa2ww.jpg&hash=686d8e036c15a7019bc8f4723e2af35008adc158)
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2018, 02:44:33 PM
The NCAA men's basketball regional advisory committees released their third set of rankings, and as expected, the Atlantic Region was among those getting shuffled. Here's the full list: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-third
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D600%2Fmh%3D600%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4ima3%2Fdinflo07zg1qa2ww.jpg&hash=686d8e036c15a7019bc8f4723e2af35008adc158)
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
I'll clear next weekend and stop fretting.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think Wooster has the inside track to being the 2nd host. If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament they would in my mind be the 2nd host.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 22, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think Wooster has the inside track to being the 2nd host. If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament they would in my mind be the 2nd host.
And if Witt wins they wouldn't host? Interested in why you think Wooster has the "inside track"
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think they need Witt to win the NCAC for either to host. If Woo beats Witt, I think they both host and JCU and Etta both go on the road regardless of whom wins the OAC.
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 22, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think Wooster has the inside track to being the 2nd host. If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament they would in my mind be the 2nd host.
Agreed
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2018, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 22, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think Wooster has the inside track to being the 2nd host. If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament they would in my mind be the 2nd host.
And if Witt wins they wouldn't host? Interested in why you think Wooster has the "inside track"
I do not want to speak for another poster, but I think he was implying that Witt is definitely going to host regardless of the outcome of the NCAC and Wooster has the inside track if two teams from GL region host to be that second team. Along those same lines, and as I said above, I agree - if Wooster wins the NCAC championship, they will be hosting in addition to Witt.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 22, 2018, 01:30:14 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2018, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 22, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on February 22, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 21, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Seems like the GL is pretty well set. Woo, Witt, Etta and JCU look pretty solid. It could dicey for whomever is ranked 4 th next week if all 4 of those teams fail to earn the Pool A this weekend. If there are upsets in both the OAC and the NCAC, and all four of the aforementioned schools need a Pool C, they all will have good resumes but you never know if they might get left at the table.
I have all four in the top 14 resumes nationally right now, before removing any teams for Pool A berths. With 21 Pool C berths to give out, I don't think there can be enough chaos in conference tournaments to knock out any of those four. The big question now is who (besides Witt) will host.
Assuming the OAC title features the Streaks and Pios, I have to imagine the winner would be in a could position to host
I think Wooster has the inside track to being the 2nd host. If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament they would in my mind be the 2nd host.
And if Witt wins they wouldn't host? Interested in why you think Wooster has the "inside track"
I do not want to speak for another poster, but I think he was implying that Witt is definitely going to host regardless of the outcome of the NCAC and Wooster has the inside track if two teams from GL region host to be that second team. Along those same lines, and as I said above, I agree - if Wooster wins the NCAC championship, they will be hosting in addition to Witt.
Correct. Witt is in line to host regardless of what happens this week.
An interesting scenario in my mind is if Witt beats Woo in the final, and Marietta beats JCU in the OAC final...could the Pioneers jump both JCU and Wooster to grab the 2nd spot. Or would a JCU title win be enough to overtake Wooster losing the NCAC final.
Don't forget that location comes into play around hosting. Just because you are ranked higher regionally or even seed wise in the tourney, does not mean you automatically are hosting. It all depends who else is in and where they can get to under 500 miles. (for example - Hope hosting the regional last year). Just wondering if Marietta's (or anyone else's) location might factor into the hosting decision.
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2018, 04:28:20 PM
Don't forget that location comes into play around hosting. Just because you are ranked higher regionally or even seed wise in the tourney, does not mean you automatically are hosting. It all depends who else is in and where they can get to under 500 miles. (for example - Hope hosting the regional last year). Just wondering if Marietta's (or anyone else's) location might factor into the hosting decision.
It might, but usually that is a second weekend conversation, not a first weekend one. The first weekend the committee tries and gets its Top 16 squads to host. For the most part, you can consider them as the top two ranked teams in each region, BUT that is not totally true as the top two are not equal across the board. They will then craft a bracket doing their best to allow those they want to to host to host. There are exceptions, but I don't think those exceptions will come into play in the Great Lakes region. You might not be able to get the best options, but there are plenty of teams 500 miles from most Great Lakes schools.
The second weekend is a completely different conversation because the committee obviously has less control of the mileage based on results and whatnot.
Ohio Northern knocks off Marietta 94-88, so Marietta is officially a Pool C candidate. The Pios should still hear their name called on Monday...but seems likely it will be for games at someone else's gym.
John Carroll dispensed with Baldwin-Wallace 93-72 and will host ONU on Saturday for the OAC Pool A bid. B-W, a "longshot" in fantastic50's tabulations prior to this loss, is now surely done.
Pressure now on Wooster to make the NCAC final to retain a good position for host #2, I think.
Marietta will probably make the tournament, but they certainly won't be hosting as surmised.
Baldwin-Wallace has probably ended their season. I think their chances are pretty remote on getting in, especially if Ohio Wesleyan wins over Wooster (would at least move OWU ahead of BW and possibly block BW from getting to the table).
ONU secure a bid in the tournament with tonight's win. Had they lost, I think the OAC would have been a two-bid league with an outside chance of ONU making it (better than BW's chances, but only slightly).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
Marietta will probably make the tournament, but they certainly won't be hosting as surmised.
Baldwin-Wallace has probably ended their season. I think their chances are pretty remote on getting in, especially if Ohio Wesleyan wins over Wooster (would at least move OWU ahead of BW and possibly block BW from getting to the table).
ONU secure a bid in the tournament with tonight's win. Had they lost, I think the OAC would have been a two-bid league with an outside chance of ONU making it (better than BW's chances, but only slightly).
Fantastic50 actually believes Ohio Northern could only get in through the AQ. They are simply to far back in the pecking order even with their win tonight.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
Marietta will probably make the tournament, but they certainly won't be hosting as surmised.
Baldwin-Wallace has probably ended their season. I think their chances are pretty remote on getting in, especially if Ohio Wesleyan wins over Wooster (would at least move OWU ahead of BW and possibly block BW from getting to the table).
ONU secure a bid in the tournament with tonight's win. Had they lost, I think the OAC would have been a two-bid league with an outside chance of ONU making it (better than BW's chances, but only slightly).
You think ONU is in, Dave?
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
Marietta will probably make the tournament, but they certainly won't be hosting as surmised.
Baldwin-Wallace has probably ended their season. I think their chances are pretty remote on getting in, especially if Ohio Wesleyan wins over Wooster (would at least move OWU ahead of BW and possibly block BW from getting to the table).
ONU secure a bid in the tournament with tonight's win. Had they lost, I think the OAC would have been a two-bid league with an outside chance of ONU making it (better than BW's chances, but only slightly).
So a JCU loss appears to be good for the league as I would think JCU and Etta are in regardless and ONU would get the auto bid with a win Saturday. My question, can JCU host with a win on Saturday? I still think they need Wooster to lose, preferably in the semis, to host over Wooster. Witt has home games regardless. I think JCU has an outside chance of jumping Wooster if Wooster makes the finals and loses.
Dave - do you see a scenario in which three GL teams host?
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
ONU secure a bid in the tournament with tonight's win. Had they lost, I think the OAC would have been a two-bid league with an outside chance of ONU making it (better than BW's chances, but only slightly).
Agree with others. This seems too optimistic re: ONU. With the OAC final loss ONU would be going into selections at 19-9 (.678), 4-6 vRRO, with a good, but not exceptional, SOS. That's not that great of a resume...plus Marietta, Witt and Wooster could
all still be at the GL table as C bids before ONU would even be considered.
I have been going back and forth, actually. The fact ONU is right behind Marietta makes me think they are close in the eyes of the committee(s). ONU now has a win over Marietta (1-2 on the season) and will improve their vRRO most likely to 4-5 (considering another loss in this conversation). I think the WL and SOS conversation between the two will wash each other out and not be a factor, leaving this with the other criteria.
I could see a reason that ONU moves ahead of Marietta; I could see a reason that they stay stuck behind Marietta.
If they move ahead of Marietta, ONU WILL get to the table to be considered. That is half the battle. That also could leave Marietta out. If Marietta stays ahead of ONU, then I think ONU's chances are very slim on getting in.
Something to consider is that I am not looking at the selections through an algorithm that Fantastic50 is. I am adjusting per conversations I have with committee members and what I see them doing. I am certainly not more right or wrong nor is F50's system... I just come from a different point of view.
As for the question about the GL having three hosts, no I don't see that happening. I don't see the committee needing a third host. Men have priority in the first weekend, so there isn't any shifting around like we saw last year. Furthermore, they may need an additional host somewhere else depending on who comes out of the Texas conferences, the West Region scenarios, and even the Northeast/East Coast situations.
Let me also add, I dive into everything more in the next 48 hours than anything. I try not to get distracted with other predictions and the rankings until now. Too much to keep track of and get distracted by. I will spend a lot of time in the next three days going over numbers, positions, and results to figure out where things stand... before figuring out what I can #gleen (for Hoopsville fans) ahead of our selections show on Sunday.
"punch their ticket" implies you think they have a C bid, they would have 9 losses after losing to JCU vs 6 for Marietta. They are 1-2 head-to-head vs Marietta that's a big gap to fill with a lesser SOS as well. That's just not happening.
ONU is way down the list nationally in criteria. Even if they jumped Marietta some how they probably wouldn't get picked. That would be Marietta's nightmare.
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 22, 2018, 10:54:52 PM
My question, can JCU host with a win on Saturday? I still think they need Wooster to lose, preferably in the semis, to host over Wooster. Witt has home games regardless. I think JCU has an outside chance of jumping Wooster if Wooster makes the finals and loses.
I think if JCU and Wooster have identical weeks (e.g., both go 2-1 or 3-0), then most likely Wooster stays ahead of JCU and remains GL#2. In these scenarios, Wooster's existing SOS advantage (.560 vs .534 at the start of the week) and extra vRRO win provides the difference. There's not much else for the committee to go on: they didn't play head-to-head, and (unless I missed it) played no common opponents.
What's fun is if they have
different weeks.
Looking at the scenarios:
Wooster loses tomorrow (1-1 week), JCU wins Saturday (3-0).
Advantage JCUWoo would be 21-6 (.778) 6-3 vRRO
JCU would be 23-5 (.821), 7-2 vRRO
Woo
maybe retains a slight SOS edge here...but the other criteria favor JCU and it's the more likely GL#2 and host.
Wooster loses Saturday (2-1 week), JCU wins Saturday (3-0).
Coin flipWoo would be 22-6 (.785) 7-3 vRRO
JCU would be 23-5 (.821), 7-2 vRRO
Woo
probably retains a SOS edge here which would
counterbalance JCU's better winning percentage. So, this is a coin flip - I think either one is defensible as GL#2 and a host.
Wooster wins out (3-0 week), JCU loses Saturday (2-1).
Advantage WoosterWoo would be 23-5 (.821) 8-2 vRRO
JCU would be 22-6 (.785), 6-3 vRRO
Woo definitely retains the SOS lead here, too, and would be GL#2 and likely host.
Right now the 6 teams in line to host from the Great Lakes/Central/West Regions
Wittenberg
JCU/Wooster---one but not both will host
WashU
Plattevillle
St. John's
Whitman
Whitman is irrelevant to this part of the country for bracketing. We frequently but not always need a 6th bracket in the Midwest, that might look good at the CCIW winner if its IWU or Augustana. Maybe a possibility Augustana and Platteville flip ranking positions if Augie wins CCIW and Platteville doesn't win WIAC. In that case Platteville becomes an attractive place for that extra bracket. Except for the fact its so close to Augustana, that might be a problem. Then it might go to IWU.
Even Wheaton or North Central as CCIW tournament champion could be in the hosting picture. Fascinatingly complicated for the extra bracket if they need it.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 11:06:23 PM
I have been going back and forth, actually. The fact ONU is right behind Marietta makes me think they are close in the eyes of the committee(s). ONU now has a win over Marietta (1-2 on the season) and will improve their vRRO most likely to 4-5 (considering another loss in this conversation). I think the WL and SOS conversation between the two will wash each other out and not be a factor, leaving this with the other criteria.
I could see a reason that ONU moves ahead of Marietta; I could see a reason that they stay stuck behind Marietta.
If they move ahead of Marietta, ONU WILL get to the table to be considered. That is half the battle. That also could leave Marietta out. If Marietta stays ahead of ONU, then I think ONU's chances are very slim on getting in.
Something to consider is that I am not looking at the selections through an algorithm that Fantastic50 is. I am adjusting per conversations I have with committee members and what I see them doing. I am certainly not more right or wrong nor is F50's system... I just come from a different point of view.
I respect Dave's expert opinion, as someone who has long followed D3 basketball closely, and has frequent opportunities to talk with folks on the regional committees. Goodness knows those of us in predictive modeling have the tendency toward overconfidence (the 2008 market crash and 2016 presidential election come to mind), by downplaying even the unknowns we are aware of, much less the "unknown unknowns".
That being said, it's hard for me to see the justification for Ohio Northern jumping Marietta, if the Polar Bears lose tomorrow. My thought is that there has been a chasm between #4 and #5 in the region, and that one game won't close the gap. Here are the numbers, again assuming an ONU loss tomorrow...
Marietta 21-6 (.779 WP), .563 SOS, 4-5 vRRO (wins vs Hope, vs ONU, at BW, at ONU)
Ohio Northern 19-9 (.679 WP), .551 SOS, 4-5 vRRO (wins vs Keene St, at BW, vs BW, at Etta)
I think that the WP difference is too big, given the similar SOS & vRRO numbers and the Pioneers holding the 2-1 head-to-head advantage.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:25:12 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 11:06:23 PM
I have been going back and forth, actually. The fact ONU is right behind Marietta makes me think they are close in the eyes of the committee(s). ONU now has a win over Marietta (1-2 on the season) and will improve their vRRO most likely to 4-5 (considering another loss in this conversation). I think the WL and SOS conversation between the two will wash each other out and not be a factor, leaving this with the other criteria.
I could see a reason that ONU moves ahead of Marietta; I could see a reason that they stay stuck behind Marietta.
If they move ahead of Marietta, ONU WILL get to the table to be considered. That is half the battle. That also could leave Marietta out. If Marietta stays ahead of ONU, then I think ONU's chances are very slim on getting in.
Something to consider is that I am not looking at the selections through an algorithm that Fantastic50 is. I am adjusting per conversations I have with committee members and what I see them doing. I am certainly not more right or wrong nor is F50's system... I just come from a different point of view.
I respect Dave's expert opinion, as someone who has long followed D3 basketball closely, and has frequent opportunities to talk with folks on the regional committees. Goodness knows those of us in predictive modeling have the tendency toward overconfidence (the 2008 market crash and 2016 presidential election come to mind), by downplaying even the unknowns we are aware of, much less the "unknown unknowns".
That being said, it's hard for me to see the justification for Ohio Northern jumping Marietta, if the Polar Bears lose tomorrow. My thought is that there has been a chasm between #4 and #5 in the region, and that one game won't close the gap. Here are the numbers, again assuming an ONU loss tomorrow...
Marietta 21-6 (.779 WP), .563 SOS, 4-5 vRRO (wins vs Hope, vs ONU, at BW, at ONU)
Ohio Northern 19-9 (.679 WP), .551 SOS, 4-5 vRRO (wins vs Keene St, at BW, vs BW, at Etta)
I think that the WP difference is too big, given the similar SOS & vRRO numbers and the Pioneers holding the 2-1 head-to-head advantage.
I am with you, Drew. I think that and have thought that there is a large gap between 4 and 5 for much of the past 2-3 weeks. That is not based on anything other than looking at the numbers. I also thought that heading into this week 2-4 (Woo, JCU and Etta) were VERY closely grouped. Now Etta is out of the conversation to move up.
Do you think if Witt can hold off Ohio Wesleyan today that would be good enough for them to possibly host for both of the next two weekends? It most likely depends on how the bracket shakes out but Springfield is a pretty central location to a lot of places in the U.S. :)
Witt looks good to host round 1 and 2 regardless of tonight imo, after that it depends on how the tournament shakes out. They would most likely be in good shape to be considered for hosting a Sectional.
That is contingent on if if Witt filed paperwork to be a host site.
Found a coding issue that made my model overconfident; fixing it gives OWU (9%) and B-W (2%) a glimmer of hope for a Pool C berth, but they are far enough down the list that I don't see it happening.
Thanks. So your telling me there is a chance.
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2018, 01:30:30 PM
Witt looks good to host round 1 and 2 regardless of tonight imo, after that it depends on how the tournament shakes out. They would most likely be in good shape to be considered for hosting a Sectional.
That is contingent on if if Witt filed paperwork to be a host site.
Isn't that AD Malpractice if they failed to do that in the midst of what was an undefeated season into February?
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 25, 2018, 05:58:07 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2018, 01:30:30 PM
Witt looks good to host round 1 and 2 regardless of tonight imo, after that it depends on how the tournament shakes out. They would most likely be in good shape to be considered for hosting a Sectional.
That is contingent on if if Witt filed paperwork to be a host site.
Isn't that AD Malpractice if they failed to do that in the midst of what was an undefeated season into February?
I only mention this because we've ran into schools that had scheduling conflicts and didn't file paper work. Its a rare thing.
I think Witt is pretty familiar with the hosting process. ;)
@ Baltimore
La Roche @ Johns Hopkins
@ Springfield
Wittenberg vs. Misericordia
Marietta vs. UW-Oshkosh
@ Atlanta
Hanover vs. LaTourneau
@ Rock Island
Hope vs. Augsburg
@ University Heights
JCU vs. Thomas More
Wooster vs. Illinois Wesleyan
Quote from: pennstghs on February 24, 2018, 01:14:23 PM
Do you think if Witt can hold off Ohio Wesleyan today that would be good enough for them to possibly host for both of the next two weekends? It most likely depends on how the bracket shakes out but Springfield is a pretty central location to a lot of places in the U.S. :)
revisiting this, the bracket suggests Witt is in line to host both weekends if they win their pod
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2018, 01:59:06 PM
Quote from: pennstghs on February 24, 2018, 01:14:23 PM
Do you think if Witt can hold off Ohio Wesleyan today that would be good enough for them to possibly host for both of the next two weekends? It most likely depends on how the bracket shakes out but Springfield is a pretty central location to a lot of places in the U.S. :)
revisiting this, the bracket suggests Witt is in line to host both weekends if they win their pod
Agreed. If all of the hosts win, it is just one flight. Emory is a flight at 545 miles but Augustana is just 435 miles and JCU is a quick trip down 71 and across 70. It appears this bracket was built around the assumption that Witt wins as nearly all of the other more plausible scenarios involve two flights in an area that really should not need them. John Carroll and Augustana are 503 miles apart. John Carroll and Emory are 717 miles apart. Emory and Augustana are 789 miles apart.
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles
Great Lakes AQ's, 4 are different than last year
OAC John Carroll
NCAC Wittenberg
MIAA Hope
PAC Thomas More
AMCC LaRoche
HCAC Hanover
Great Lakes Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--12
OAC--7
MIAA--3
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Final Great Lakes Regional Rankings
1 Wittenberg 25-2 26-2 - Pool A
2 John Carroll 23-5 23-5 - Pool A
3 Marietta 21-6 21-6 -Pool C
4 Wooster 21-6 21-6 - Pool C
5 Ohio Northern 19-9 19-9 - left at the table
6 Ohio Wesleyan 19-9 19-9 - never at the table
7 Baldwin Wallace 18-9 18-9 - never at the table
8 Hope 16-8 18-9 - Pool A
9 Hanover 20-6 22-6 - Pool A
http://d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-final
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 04:08:16 PM
Final Great Lakes Regional Rankings
1 Wittenberg 25-2 26-2 - Pool A
2 John Carroll 23-5 23-5 - Pool A
3 Marietta 21-6 21-6 -Pool C
4 Wooster 21-6 21-6 - Pool C
5 Ohio Northern 19-9 19-9 - left at the table
6 Ohio Wesleyan 19-9 19-9 - never at the table
7 Baldwin Wallace 18-9 18-9 - never at the table
8 Hope 16-8 18-9 - Pool A
9 Hanover 20-6 22-6 - never at the table
http://d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-final
While technically correct that Hanover was never at the table that was because they were Pool A ;)
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2018, 04:11:40 PM
Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 04:08:16 PM
Final Great Lakes Regional Rankings
1 Wittenberg 25-2 26-2 - Pool A
2 John Carroll 23-5 23-5 - Pool A
3 Marietta 21-6 21-6 -Pool C
4 Wooster 21-6 21-6 - Pool C
5 Ohio Northern 19-9 19-9 - left at the table
6 Ohio Wesleyan 19-9 19-9 - never at the table
7 Baldwin Wallace 18-9 18-9 - never at the table
8 Hope 16-8 18-9 - Pool A
9 Hanover 20-6 22-6 - never at the table
http://d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-final
While technically correct that Hanover was never at the table that was because they were Pool A ;)
Good catch. My bad.
Congratulations to the NABC Great Lakes teams and to Nate Axelrod and Matt Croci on their POY and COY honors.
http://nabc.com/NABC_Releases/2018/d3_all_district
GREAT LAKES
First Team
Jalen Adams, Olivet
Nate Axelrod, Ohio Wesleyan*
Ryan Bruns, Ohio Northern
Cam Fails, Hanover
Damion King, Thomas More
Chad Roy, Wittenberg
Second Team
Jason Beckman, Hope
Matt Csuhran, John Carroll
Marcus Dempsey, Muskingum
Ishimeal Nance, Penn State Altoona
Dillon Young, Marietta
Coach of the Year: Matt Croci, Wittenberg
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
I won't pretend to know much about MIAA football -- I still don't actually believe it exists -- but I don't think Finlandia has ever had a relationship with the MIAA. As far as I can tell they've only ever played one game against an MIAA opponent.
Wisconsin Lutheran was an associate member for football for a time (and Defiance was a conference member for a time before that), but since Trine (/Tri-State) joined the league around 2005 they haven't needed to fill a hole for football that I'm aware of.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
There's always the SLIAC, which has a member in Kentucky, Spalding University, that's an hour and a half from Thomas More. The Golden Eagles really need a travel partner for that league, and the Saints could be just what the doctor ordered.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 26, 2018, 01:45:05 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
There's always the SLIAC, which has a member in Kentucky, Spalding University, that's an hour and a half from Thomas More. The Golden Eagles really need a travel partner for that league, and the Saints could be just what the doctor ordered.
I am told the SLIAC was considered, but the SLIAC was not interested.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 26, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
I won't pretend to know much about MIAA football -- I still don't actually believe it exists -- but I don't think Finlandia has ever had a relationship with the MIAA. As far as I can tell they've only ever played one game against an MIAA opponent.
Wisconsin Lutheran was an associate member for football for a time (and Defiance was a conference member for a time before that), but since Trine (/Tri-State) joined the league around 2005 they haven't needed to fill a hole for football that I'm aware of.
And it is a thing ... MIAA and Finlandia announced it ahead of last season: http://www.miaa.org/sports/fball/2016-17/releases/Finlandia (May of 2017 to be exact)
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
Thanks for the update. I missed that one.
Very challenging indeed.
Considering what we know...TMC may have to find a home outside of D3.
Finlandia is on all the MIAA football schedules for 2018, except Calvin, because.... reasons. ;)
Good luck to Alma who gets to play at Finlandia in Hancock on November 10.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 26, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on March 26, 2018, 12:13:47 PM
Drew Cooper resigns at Thomas More College. He moves on to Kentucky Wesleyan, a D2 program down the road in Owensboro.
http://www.tmcsaints.com/sports/mbkb/2017-18/releases/20180323cuz57o
Going to be an interesting off season at TMC. The Saints are now out of the PAC and have not formally announced a plan for the future (New conference, NAIA, ect.). My guess is they go independent for D3 for at least a season while they continue to look for a home. Going to have a new coach and scheduling will be a bear for next year with no conference games built in for whomever takes over (I assume Coach Cooper had several games taken care of before he left).
Um... some of this is actually already out there in the public domain.
Jeff Hans already told us on Hoopsville they are going independent next season and talked about the struggle to find games and schedule accordingly.
So, we know they are going independent at least in the short-term. After that is guess-work publicly. There are plenty of rumors. I know most are not true based on what I have learned, but I am not at liberty to say what they are going to do in the long-term.
They do have to find a conference, but there really aren't any available. The NCAC, OAC, and HCAC are not interested. The MIAA was an idea at one time, but that has fallen a part especially on the football side where the MIAA brought in Finlandia to solve the hole. The SAA is an idea, but I'm told that hasn't gotten any interest on the SAA side. It could get extreme depending on how desperate TMC and the CAC both are getting - but that is also a LONG haul from CNU to TMC, so I don't see that really being a viable option even as a short-term fix for both entities. The ODAC isn't an option, neither is the AMCC or just about anyone else.
TMC is in no-man's land and next year will prove to be very challenging.
I won't pretend to know much about MIAA football -- I still don't actually believe it exists -- but I don't think Finlandia has ever had a relationship with the MIAA. As far as I can tell they've only ever played one game against an MIAA opponent.
Wisconsin Lutheran was an associate member for football for a time (and Defiance was a conference member for a time before that), but since Trine (/Tri-State) joined the league around 2005 they haven't needed to fill a hole for football that I'm aware of.
And it is a thing ... MIAA and Finlandia announced it ahead of last season: http://www.miaa.org/sports/fball/2016-17/releases/Finlandia (May of 2017 to be exact)
Well bust my buttons. Why didn't you say that in the first place?
LOL It has been mentioned a few times... I think even on Hoopsville... since the announcement...
But nice pop-culture reference.
It's early, with Selection Monday still seven weeks away, but here are my mock regional rankings at this point...
1) Marietta (12-1, 6-0 OAC, 0.923 WP, 0.558 SOS)
Best wins: at LaRoche, vs Wittenberg
Losses: at Elmhurst (9-5, 4-1 CCIW, unranked in Central region)
2) Capital (11-2, 6-0 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.563 SOS)
Best wins:vs Mt Union, vs Baldwin-Wallace
Losses: at Wittenberg, at Albion
3) Wabash (10-1, 6-0 NCAC, 0.909 WP, 0.542 SOS)
Best wins: vs Wooster, vs Elmhurst (9-5, 4-1 CCIW, unranked in Central region)
Losses: vs Wilmington
4) La_Roche (12-2, 7-0 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.528 SOS)
Best wins: Penn State-Behrend
Losses: at Marietta, at Hope
5) Wittenberg (10-2, 5-1 NCAC, 0.833 WP, 0.524 SOS)
Best wins: vs Capital, vs Wilmington
Losses: at Marietta, vs Denison
6) Wooster (10-3, 5-1 NCAC, 0.769 WP, 0.539 SOS)
Best wins: vs New Jersey City (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, #2 in weak Atlantic region), vs Ohio Wesleyan
Losses: neu Whitman (11-1, 3-0 NWC, #3 in West), at Wabash, neu Sul Ross St (7-8, 2-4 ASC, unranked in South)
7) Baldwin_Wallace (9-4, 3-3 OAC, 0.692 WP, 0.541 SOS)
Best wins: Thomas More (8-7, independent, unranked), at Muskingum
Losses: at Marietta, vs Capital, at Mt. Union, at Rochester (11-1, 1-0 UAA, #1 in weak East region)
8) Mount_Union (11-2, 5-1 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.496 SOS)
Best wins: vs Baldwin-Wallace, vs Wilmington
Losses: at Capital, at Transylvania
9) Albion (9-3, 2-0 MIAA, 0.750 WP, 0.494 SOS)
Best wins: vs Capital, vs Chicago (8-4, 1-0 UAA, #7 in Central region)
Losses: at North Central (12-3, 4-2 CCIW, #5 in Central), at Bluffton, at Case
----------
10) Rose-Hulman (8-4, 5-1 HCAC, 0.667 WP, 0.513 SOS)
Best wins: vs Hanover, vs Millikin (8-5, 2-3 CCIW, unranked in Central)
Losses: at Wabash, at Louisiana Coll. (11-2, 5-1 ASC, #6 in South), vs Transylvania, vs DePauw
11) Transylvania (8-5, 5-1 HCAC, 0.615 WP, 0.581 SOS)
Best wins: vs Mt Union, vs Thomas More, at Rose-Hulman
Losses: at Hamilton (13-0, #3 in NE), vs Chicago, at Centre (10-2, #3 in South), at Emory & Henry (9-5, 2-3 ODAC), at Hanover
12) Penn_State-Behrend (12-1, 6-1 AMCC, 0.923 WP, 0.453 SOS)
Best wins: vs Carnegie-Mellon, vs Heidelberg
Losses: at LaRoche
With those numbers, Transy definitely gets ranked over Albion.
Kudos to La Roche this year going out and really challenging themselves out of conference. The AMCC unfortunately is a drag on team's SOS numbers every year which lends itself to always being a one bid league. Doing well against a non con slate of Marietta, John Carroll, Hope, and Calvin have them as the first Pool C candidate out of that conference in a long time. I expect their SOS to come down as conference play continues but if they can remain unscathed outside of losing in the conference tournament...there's a shot there.
At the moment, the. 615 WP is a problem, but if they keep winning, they'll certainly get ranked.
quote author=Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) link=topic=5126.msg1914994#msg1914994 date=1547033651]
With those numbers, Transy definitely gets ranked over Albion.
[/quote]
I was looking more at the actual records at this point. With so few games the percentages can skew pretty quickly. Two losses isn't going to be too much for that SOS. Committees have irrational hatred for SOS numbers under .500 remember.
Two teams off to surprising starts continue to look impressive tonight. Capital shoots a high percentage at Marietta, and comes away with the victory, 82-78. Wabash beats Wittenberg 96-83, in a game that was all but over by early in the second half. Both the Crusaders and the Little Giants now have sole possession of first place in their respective conferences.
However, LaRoche is trailing Franciscan at halftime, 39-34.
Wooster to Host Third Annual Great Lakes Invitational this December
http://www.woosterathletics.com/sports/mbkb/2018-19/releases/20190108hilehm
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 09, 2019, 08:55:00 PM
Two teams off to surprising starts continue to look impressive tonight. Capital shoots a high percentage at Marietta, and comes away with the victory, 82-78. Wabash beats Wittenberg 96-83, in a game that was all but over by early in the second half. Both the Crusaders and the Little Giants now have sole possession of first place in their respective conferences.
However, LaRoche is trailing Franciscan at halftime, 39-34.
They did come back and win against the formerly moribund now just mediocre Franciscan.
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=l4zv4/rac44cfsabpyqn6a.jpg)
The grind of conference play is in full gear. Nothing beats a team up or reveals how good one is like the grind of conference play.
Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) we take a look at the grind and how teams are surviving, surprising, and even impressing as the holidays and the break quickly become a distant memory in the rear view mirror.
The first of the season's "WBCA Center Court" segments also debuts with the dedication of one coach off the court and with her family. UW-Platteville women's coach Megan Wilson talks about her daughter's battle with cancer and the decision to step away from coaching to help her daughter fight.
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show, LIVE, starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2D0Qd7t
If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options below.
Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Pat McKenzie, No. 11 St. John's men's coach
- Ben Stachowski, No. 20 Wabash men's senior guard
- Alyssa Polosky, No. 14 SUNY Geneseo women's head coach
- Megan Willson, UW-Platteville women's head coach (WBCA Center Court)
- Trevor Woodruff, No. 3 Scranton women's head coach
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Now that we are at the mid-point of the NCAC season...with 8 conference games to go it is shaping up to be a really good race between Wabash (8-0) and Wooster (7-1).
I do believe if Wabash wins at Wooster, they will win conference. I just don't see 3 other losses on the schedule.
Wednesday, January 19
Kalamazoo at Calvin — 4
Trine at Albion — 3
Adrian at Olivet — 2
Hope at Alma — 1
If regional rankings were coming out this early, I would predict the following...
1) Capital (13-2, 8-0 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.570 SOS), won at Marietta
2) Marietta (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.542 SOS)
3) Wabash (12-1, 8-0 NCAC, 0.923 WP, 0.507 SOS), won vs Wooster
4) Wooster (12-3, 7-1 NCAC, 0.800 WP, 0.566 SOS)
5) La_Roche (14-2, 9-0 AMCC, 0.875 WP, 0.513 SOS)
6) Wittenberg (10-4, 5-3 NCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.545 SOS)
7) Mount Union (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.488 SOS)
8) Albion (11-3, 4-0 MIAA, 0.786 WP, 0.490 SOS)
9) Baldwin Wallace (10-5, 4-4 OAC, 0.667 WP, 0.532 SOS)
----------
10) Wilmington (9-5, 5-3 OAC, 0.643 WP, 0.543 SOS)
11) Rose-Hulman (9-5, 6-2 HCAC, 0.643 WP, 0.522 SOS)
12) Penn_State-Behrend (13-2, 7-2 AMCC, 0.867 WP, 0.457 SOS)
The top four currently look pretty good for Pool C berths (if needed), but there is a steep drop after that. Witt and Mount can likely afford only one or two more regular-season losses, or else they likely will need to win their conference tournaments.
My projections on conference races at the moment...
OAC: Capital 16-2 (64% to get the #1 seed), Marietta 14-4 (21%), Mt Union 14-4 (15%), Wilm 10-8, B-W 10-8
NCAC: Wabash 16-2 (65%), Wooster 15-3 (35%), Witt 11-7, Oberlin 10-8
MIAA: Albion 11-3 (43%), Olivet 10-4 (29%), Trine 9-5 (16%), Hope 8-6 (7%), Calvin 7-7
AMCC: LaRoche 16-2 (82%), PSU-Behrend 14-4 (17%), Mt. Aloysius 10-8, Medaille 10-8
HCAC: Hanover, Rose-Hulman, Bluffton, & Translyvania all 13-5 (slight edge to Hanover)
PAC: St Vincent 14-2 (84%), Grove City 10-6, Chatham 9-7, W&J 9-7
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=m5lxl/o3h5z2xs7txn530n.jpg)
The Hoopsville Marathon Show ... is tomorrow!
Tune in starting at 12:00 p.m. ET as we talk to guests from around the country about nothing but #d3hoops.
It is all about celebrating the season, student-athletes, coaches, and an exciting season.
For more information, click here: http://bit.ly/2HGx0N3
We will share more about the show a little later.
Just in time for your first rankings on Wednesday a few significant upsets around the region this first weekend of February.
OAC: John Carroll 88 Capital 69 --Capital/Marietta now tied
NCAC: Allegheny 80 Wabash 68 --Wooster now with 1 game lead
HCAC: Anderson 79 Hanover 74 -- back to a 1 game lead
PAC: Westminster 87 St. Vincent 80 --St. V has already clinched a share of PAC, loss affects their regional ranking spot I would think.
MIAA: Kzoo 82 Olivet 81 -- Trine now has a 1 game lead over Albion
AMCC: no upsets
While it sounds like the regional & national committees may be looking at team resumes through a slightly different lens this year, here's my prediction of the first round of regional rankings.
1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS) - swept Marietta, lost to Witt
2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS) - split with Wabash, beat Witt
3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS) - swept by Capital, beat Witt & La Roche
4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS) - split with Wooster, beat Witt
5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS) - 1-3 vs higher-ranked teams (beat Capital)
6) La Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0.549 ncSOS) - lost to Marietta, swept PS-B, no other notable wins
7) Mount Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.491 SOS, 0.408 ncSOS) - lost to Cap & Marietta, swept Wilmington
8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS) - 1-5 vs higher-ranked teams (beat Wabash)
9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.512 ncSOS) - no great non-conf wins (lost to Wooster)
----------
Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS) - beat Capital & Chicago, maybe should be #9
St. Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.473 ncSOS) - only one quality win (Hood)
Penn State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.386 ncSOS) - no quality wins
Fantastic50 - thanks for your computer projection which I always find very helpful! :)
As another point of reference, here are the current Massey ratings for some of the top Great Lakes teams:
#8 Wooster 18-3
#9 Marietta 18-3
#12 Capital 17-4
#19 Wabash 18-3
#24 Mt. Union 17-4
#33 La Roche 19-2
#34 Wilmington 14-6
#37 Wittenberg 16-5
#56 Trine 15-5
#69 Albion 14-6
#83 Hanover 16-5
#84 PSU-Behrend 18-3
#142 St. Vincent 18-3
I didn't list any GL teams that have more than 6 losses because it is unlikely that the NCAA will include them in the regional rankings this week.
Massey does utilize strength of schedule but some of the exhibition game results seem to be included in their numbers so not 100% accurate.
Here is the Massey link: https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/ncaa-d3/ratings
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 03, 2019, 01:54:35 PM
While it sounds like the regional & national committees may be looking at team resumes through a slightly different lens this year, here's my prediction of the first round of regional rankings.
1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS) - swept Marietta, lost to Witt
2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS) - split with Wabash, beat Witt
3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS) - swept by Capital, beat Witt & La Roche
4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS) - split with Wooster, beat Witt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS) - 1-3 vs higher-ranked teams (beat Capital)
6) La Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0.549 ncSOS) - lost to Marietta, swept PS-B, no other notable wins
7) Mount Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.491 SOS, 0.408 ncSOS) - lost to Cap & Marietta, swept Wilmington
8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS) - 1-5 vs higher-ranked teams (beat Wabash)
9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.512 ncSOS) - no great non-conf wins (lost to Wooster)
----------
Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS) - beat Capital & Chicago, maybe should be #9
St. Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.473 ncSOS) - only one quality win (Hood)
Penn State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.386 ncSOS) - no quality wins
Drew the red line where the Pool C cutoff is probably at. Over on the Pool C thread Fantastic50 has Wittenberg in the "Work ahead" category. Looking at their schedule Wittenberg probably needs to beat either Wooster(Sat) or Wabash(next Wed) plus their other two games to advance their shot at a C. Not sure just winning a semi-final game against either Wabash/Wooster would do enough for them as a C candidate with 8 losses. 7 they might be ok.
Regarding Pool C, the question is what the committee will do with La Roche, which has an excellent record, but was defeated by the only good team they played (Marietta). That game was the season opener, on the road, and was close (91-87). If they are ranked 5th, despite the lack of quality wins, that might indicate a willingness of the committee to consider them for a Pool C slot. The .551 non-conference SOS shows that La Roche played a decent schedule outside of the AMCC, but none of the teams that they beat (Calvin, John Carroll, etc.) panned out.
Here are the first rankings for the men this season: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-first
Great Lakes
1. Marietta
2. Wooster
3. La Roche
4. Capital
5. Wabash
6. Wittenberg
7. Mount Union
8. Wilmington
9. Baldwin Wallace
Some surprises here and we have our La Roche answer....the Redhawks sit at #3.
Mt. Union is in a weird position. 2nd in the OAC yet could be regionally ranked behind as many as 3 OAC programs.
This region continues to be strange. I have no idea in what order the top four will be ranked, the next four are almost interchangeable, too, and there are several contenders for this last spot. Here's my guess...
1) Marietta (18-5, 12-4 OAC, 0.783 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.580 ncSOS, 6-4 vRRO)
2) Capital (19-4, 14-2 OAC, 0.826 WP, 0.524 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS, 6-1 vRRO)
3) Wooster (19-4, 14-2 NCAC, 0.826 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
4) La Roche (21-2, 16-0 AMCC, 0.913 WP, 0.506 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)
5) Wittenberg (17-5, 12-4 NCAC, 0.773 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
6) Wabash (17-4, 13-3 NCAC, 0.810 WP, 0.512 SOS, 0.498 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
7) Wilmington (16-6, 12-4 OAC, 0.727 WP, 0.529 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS, 4-5 vRRO)
8) Mount Union (19-4, 13-3 OAC, 0.826 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.414 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO)
9) Hanover (16-5, 13-3 HCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.496 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)
----------
Transylvania (15-8, 12-4 HCAC, 0.652 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.652 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
Albion (16-6, 9-3 MIAA, 0.727 WP, 0.475 SOS, 0.498 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO)
Penn State-Behrend (20-3, 13-3 AMCC, 0.870 WP, 0.468 SOS, 0.393 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2019, 02:12:58 PM
Mt. Union is in a weird position. 2nd in the OAC yet could be regionally ranked behind as many as 3 OAC programs.
I don't understand how Mount would be behind Wilm. They swept the Quakers already. They have identical results against the other two RR OAC teams. Surely a December win against Wabash doesn't outweigh getting beat twice head-to-head.
Quote from: Dr. Acula on February 10, 2019, 04:31:35 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2019, 02:12:58 PM
Mt. Union is in a weird position. 2nd in the OAC yet could be regionally ranked behind as many as 3 OAC programs.
I don't understand how Mount would be behind Wilm. They swept the Quakers already. They have identical results against the other two RR OAC teams. Surely a December win against Wabash doesn't outweigh getting beat twice head-to-head.
If referring to the Week 1 rankings, the RR is irrelevant. They didn't use Results versus Regionally Ranked Opponents as it didn't exist when they were ranking. And there is more than WL, SOS, and vRRO. There is comparable results, head-to-heads, and if you get into secondary criteria Non-Conference SOS (which could be a factor here off the top of my head).
If it is the second week's rankings you have in mind... Mount may have an argument, but I haven't dived in that deep as of yet.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 10, 2019, 03:04:22 PM
8) Mount Union (19-4, 13-3 OAC, 0.826 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.414 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO)
Woof...
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 10, 2019, 03:04:22 PM
Penn State-Behrend (20-3, 13-3 AMCC, 0.870 WP, 0.468 SOS, 0.393 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
Double woof...
I'd be careful with the use of the non conference SOS information. I get the sense too many people are using that to help make their decisions on where teams should be ranked.
Let's remember that is a SECONDARY criteria item. The only way it will even be considered is if teams being considered (and there could be more than two being considered at once) can't be decided on rankings wise and whatnot based on all the primary criteria. If the primary criteria leaves the RAC or national committee deadlocked, then they would go to secondary criteria. That's where the non-conf SOS will come into play, but ONLY in comparison to the team(s) being discussed. There is also some other secondary criteria like complete record (for anyone with some games not considered on their resume in the primary round).
I just want to make sure, because even I have fallen trap to looking at the non-conference SOS a bit too soon.
Good point, Dave.
It never hurts to keep re-posting the criteria. Here's the primary criteria:
The primary criteria emphasize competition leading up to NCAA championships; all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed
in priority order).
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;
● Division III head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common Division III opponents;
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking.
Conference postseason contests are included.
● Division III strength of schedule;
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
● Nullification (Bylaw 31.02.4).
Note: Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the
primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
... and here's the secondary criteria:
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria
listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against all other opponents from
other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
● Non-Division III won-lost percentage;
● Results versus common non-Division III opponents;
● Division III non-conference strength-of-schedule.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Men's Basketball Committee.
Thanks - at least someone thinks I have a good point these days. :)
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 04:45:48 PM
Quote from: Dr. Acula on February 10, 2019, 04:31:35 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2019, 02:12:58 PM
Mt. Union is in a weird position. 2nd in the OAC yet could be regionally ranked behind as many as 3 OAC programs.
I don't understand how Mount would be behind Wilm. They swept the Quakers already. They have identical results against the other two RR OAC teams. Surely a December win against Wabash doesn't outweigh getting beat twice head-to-head.
If referring to the Week 1 rankings, the RR is irrelevant. They didn't use Results versus Regionally Ranked Opponents as it didn't exist when they were ranking. And there is more than WL, SOS, and vRRO. There is comparable results, head-to-heads, and if you get into secondary criteria Non-Conference SOS (which could be a factor here off the top of my head).
If it is the second week's rankings you have in mind... Mount may have an argument, but I haven't dived in that deep as of yet.
I was just referring to 50's guess at the upcoming RR. Mount needs to win the OAC tourney so I'm not trying to split hairs on the RR for their at-large resume. I was just wondering aloud what the case would be for Wilm.
And thanks to GS for the criteria. Very educational for a novice such as myself.
The only case I can see for Wilmington over Mt. Union is the 9 RRO's and higher win%. I'm a big head-to-head results guy, those should always matter most to me.
Anyway I said Mt. Union "could" be ranked behind "as many as" 3, not "would". With new interpretations of the criteria and introduction of RRO's this week either in front of or behind Wilmington wouldn't surprise me.
The second week Regional Rankings have been released: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-second
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=n39hj/y3zd18adjie55k0v.jpg)
It is now or never.
The last week of the Division III basketball regular season is here. Conferences will decide who will earn automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments and teams try and position themselves for at-large bids, hosting opportunities, and bracketing considerations.
For teams who have been faltering, this is the last chance to right the ship. For programs which have underachieved, this is the last opportunity to live up to expectations. And of course for those with Cinderella dreams, this is the chance to try on the glass slipper.
Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will cover it all in a special, extended, episode which for the first time (outside of Marathon programming) will feature a guest from each of the eight regions. We will also discuss which teams may be on the bubble, who has most likely secured at-large bid, and which teams need to win the AQs. Plus, we talk about how regions as we know it now could very well change in the future.
Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET. It can be watched live right here: http://bit.ly/2EeG5ZE (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).
If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.
Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Katherine Bixby, Johns Hopkins women's coach
- Jonathan Crosthwaite, Occidental men's junior
- Marc Brown, NJCU men's coach
- Justin LeBlanc, Millsaps women's coach
- Jamie Seward, SUNY New Paltz women's coach
- Marcos Echevarria, No. 17 Nichols men's senior
- Herman Carmichael, La Roche men's coach
- Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Luthern women's coach
- Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
- Pat Coleman & Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com (Bubble Talk)
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
The third public NCAA Division III regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-third
Wish they should have waited a day for the Great Lakes Regional ratings. Marietta upset at home by John Carroll, that's a very poor end of season for them. Cap also stumbled a bit at the end.
Mount may have moved up a spot (obviously I am a fan). They did beat Capital at home and were unbeaten in their facility.
Hopefully the Raiders can take care of business tomorrow night against the Blue Streaks and finish first or second in the OAC tourney after sharing the conference title. I am not familiar with NCAA selection procedures, but hope a win tomorrow night will get them into the field, even if they lose the final.
Well ... they never change the data on regional rankings in any sports, so ...
But the loss for Marietta will be registered in the Week 4 rankings and the final ones done by the committee for selections, bracketing, hosting, etc. These rankings aren't the be-all and end-all.
Final Regional Rankings with WP/SOS/RRO
data sheet: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
Great Lakes
1 Wittenberg 22-5 .815/.545/6-3
2 Marietta 20-6 .769/.549/6-4
3 Wooster 23-5 .821/.543/3-4
4 Capital 20-7 .741/.545/6-4
5 Baldwin Wallace 20-8 .714/.550/4-8
----------------------------------------------------
6 Mount Union 22-6 .786/.511/5-4
7 Wilmington 17-8 .680/.544/5-6
8 Wabash 19-6 .760/.533/2-4
9 La Roche 24-3 .889/.510/0-1
Mt. Union needed a tougher non-conference schedule, bad luck Adrian wasn't better.
Wilmington had an open date they couldn't fill that might have helped them
Wabash had two out of division games that didn't help them
La Roche I don't know.......join the OAC I guess.
BW would have been an interesting 'C' candidate
I'm not thrilled with the #1 ranked team in any region not getting a hosting opportunity. But I don't know if Wittenberg put in to host, I assume they did.
Great Lakes AQ's, 4 are different than last year and only 1 reg. season champion (Hanover)
OAC Baldwin Wallace
NCAC Wittenberg
MIAA Albion
PAC Chatham
AMCC PSU-Behrend
HCAC Hanover
Great Lakes Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
2019--Wooster, Marietta, Capital
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--13
OAC--9
MIAA--3
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:27:33 AM
Final Regional Rankings with WP/SOS/RRO
data sheet: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
Great Lakes
1 Wittenberg 22-5 .815/.545/6-3
2 Marietta 20-6 .769/.549/6-4
3 Wooster 23-5 .821/.543/3-4
4 Capital 20-7 .741/.545/6-4
5 Baldwin Wallace 20-8 .714/.550/4-8
----------------------------------------------------
6 Mount Union 22-6 .786/.511/5-4
7 Wilmington 17-8 .680/.544/5-6
8 Wabash 19-6 .760/.533/2-4
9 La Roche 24-3 .889/.510/0-1
Mt. Union needed a tougher non-conference schedule, bad luck Adrian wasn't better.
Wilmington had an open date they couldn't fill that might have helped them
Wabash had two out of division games that didn't help them
La Roche I don't know.......join the OAC I guess.
BW would have been an interesting 'C' candidate
I'm not thrilled with the #1 ranked team in any region not getting a hosting opportunity. But I don't know if Wittenberg put in to host, I assume they did.
Word on the NCAC board was that Wittenberg had a conflict with the gym and did not put in to host.
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:27:33 AM
Final Regional Rankings with WP/SOS/RRO
data sheet: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
Great Lakes
1 Wittenberg 22-5 .815/.545/6-3
2 Marietta 20-6 .769/.549/6-4
3 Wooster 23-5 .821/.543/3-4
4 Capital 20-7 .741/.545/6-4
5 Baldwin Wallace 20-8 .714/.550/4-8
----------------------------------------------------
6 Mount Union 22-6 .786/.511/5-4
7 Wilmington 17-8 .680/.544/5-6
8 Wabash 19-6 .760/.533/2-4
9 La Roche 24-3 .889/.510/0-1
Mt. Union needed a tougher non-conference schedule, bad luck Adrian wasn't better.
Wilmington had an open date they couldn't fill that might have helped them
Wabash had two out of division games that didn't help them
La Roche I don't know.......join the OAC I guess.
BW would have been an interesting 'C' candidate
I'm not thrilled with the #1 ranked team in any region not getting a hosting opportunity. But I don't know if Wittenberg put in to host, I assume they did.
If the #1 team in a region isn't hosting - and they're within 500 miles of at least three teams - assume if they're not hosting, the paperwork wasn't submitted.
Aside from Caldwell at Capital - are there any players in the GL not playing this weekend because of injury?
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2019, 02:08:47 AM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:27:33 AM
Final Regional Rankings with WP/SOS/RRO
data sheet: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
Great Lakes
1 Wittenberg 22-5 .815/.545/6-3
2 Marietta 20-6 .769/.549/6-4
3 Wooster 23-5 .821/.543/3-4
4 Capital 20-7 .741/.545/6-4
5 Baldwin Wallace 20-8 .714/.550/4-8
----------------------------------------------------
6 Mount Union 22-6 .786/.511/5-4
7 Wilmington 17-8 .680/.544/5-6
8 Wabash 19-6 .760/.533/2-4
9 La Roche 24-3 .889/.510/0-1
Mt. Union needed a tougher non-conference schedule, bad luck Adrian wasn't better.
Wilmington had an open date they couldn't fill that might have helped them
Wabash had two out of division games that didn't help them
La Roche I don't know.......join the OAC I guess.
BW would have been an interesting 'C' candidate
I'm not thrilled with the #1 ranked team in any region not getting a hosting opportunity. But I don't know if Wittenberg put in to host, I assume they did.
Word on the NCAC board was that Wittenberg had a conflict with the gym and did not put in to host.
It doesn't appear to be athletics related as there are no sports teams on campus this weekend. Their academic calendar says spring break starts Friday.
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2019, 02:08:47 AM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:27:33 AM
Final Regional Rankings with WP/SOS/RRO
data sheet: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
Great Lakes
1 Wittenberg 22-5 .815/.545/6-3
2 Marietta 20-6 .769/.549/6-4
3 Wooster 23-5 .821/.543/3-4
4 Capital 20-7 .741/.545/6-4
5 Baldwin Wallace 20-8 .714/.550/4-8
----------------------------------------------------
6 Mount Union 22-6 .786/.511/5-4
7 Wilmington 17-8 .680/.544/5-6
8 Wabash 19-6 .760/.533/2-4
9 La Roche 24-3 .889/.510/0-1
Mt. Union needed a tougher non-conference schedule, bad luck Adrian wasn't better.
Wilmington had an open date they couldn't fill that might have helped them
Wabash had two out of division games that didn't help them
La Roche I don't know.......join the OAC I guess.
BW would have been an interesting 'C' candidate
I'm not thrilled with the #1 ranked team in any region not getting a hosting opportunity. But I don't know if Wittenberg put in to host, I assume they did.
Word on the NCAC board was that Wittenberg had a conflict with the gym and did not put in to host.
It doesn't appear to be athletics related as there are no sports teams on campus this weekend. Their academic calendar says spring break starts Friday.
The hosting deadline is well before the end of the season. It could simply be (if they didn't bid to host) that they thought they'd not be in position to do it and didn't want to do the paperwork for nothing. Remember, it was a big run in the last two weeks that got them where they are. They were an afterthought in January.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2019, 02:32:43 PM
The hosting deadline is well before the end of the season. It could simply be (if they didn't bid to host) that they thought they'd not be in position to do it and didn't want to do the paperwork for nothing. Remember, it was a big run in the last two weeks that got them where they are. They were an afterthought in January.
Possible, but Wittenberg is no stranger to NCAA postseasons in multiple sports (men's basketball, certainly). I have to believe that if they didn't file to host, there's a legitimate venue conflict that prevented it. Maybe a secret John Legend homecoming concert at the Pam? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 26, 2019, 03:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2019, 02:32:43 PM
The hosting deadline is well before the end of the season. It could simply be (if they didn't bid to host) that they thought they'd not be in position to do it and didn't want to do the paperwork for nothing. Remember, it was a big run in the last two weeks that got them where they are. They were an afterthought in January.
Possible, but Wittenberg is no stranger to NCAA postseasons in multiple sports (men's basketball, certainly). I have to believe that if they didn't file to host, there's a legitimate venue conflict that prevented it. Maybe a secret John Legend homecoming concert at the Pam? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see.
Best I can tell you ... there was an effort to host, so I am not sure if there was a conflict. I just know they didn't file to host by the deadline.
GOOD LUCK TO OHIO ATHLETIC CONFERENCE TEAMS IN THE TOURNEY.
Schedule for the GL tonight:
Baldwin Wallace vs Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic) @ Oswego St 5:30pm
Wittenberg vs Emory (South) @ Guilford 5:30pm
Hanover vs Wheaton (IL) (Central) @ Wooster 5:30pm
Albion vs Loras (West) @ North Central 6:30pm
Capital vs UW-Platteville (Central) @ Augustana 6:30pm
Penn St-Behrend @ Hamilton (Northeast) 7:30pm
Wooster vs Baruch (Atlantic) 7:30pm
Marietta vs Maryville (South) 8:00pm
Chatham @ North Central (Central) 8:30pm
No Great Lakes teams face each other and every region is represented except for the East.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2019, 03:58:11 PM
Schedule for the GL tonight:
Baldwin Wallace vs Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic) @ Oswego St 5:30pm 75-61
Wittenberg vs Emory (South) @ Guilford 5:30pm 100-88
Hanover vs Wheaton (IL) (Central) @ Wooster 5:30pm 73-84
Albion vs Loras (West) @ North Central 6:30pm 64-75
Capital vs UW-Platteville (Central) @ Augustana 6:30pm 78-76 OT
Penn St-Behrend @ Hamilton (Northeast) 7:30pm 70-72
Wooster vs Baruch (Atlantic) 7:30pm 81-57
Marietta vs Maryville (South) 8:00pm 101-77
Chatham @ North Central (Central) 8:30pm 48-77
No Great Lakes teams face each other and every region is represented except for the East.
5-4 record in the first round
Baldwin Wallace @ Oswego St (East) 7:00pm
Wooster vs Wheaton (Central) 7:00pm
Wittenberg @ Guilford (South) 7:00pm
Marietta vs Arcadia (Mid-Atlantic) 7:00pm
Capital @ Augustana (Central) 7:00pm
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2019, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2019, 03:58:11 PM
Schedule for the GL tonight:
Baldwin Wallace vs Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic) @ Oswego St 5:30pm 75-61
Wittenberg vs Emory (South) @ Guilford 5:30pm 100-88
Hanover vs Wheaton (IL) (Central) @ Wooster 5:30pm 73-84
Albion vs Loras (West) @ North Central 6:30pm 64-75
Capital vs UW-Platteville (Central) @ Augustana 6:30pm 78-76 OT
Penn St-Behrend @ Hamilton (Northeast) 7:30pm 70-72
Wooster vs Baruch (Atlantic) 7:30pm 81-57
Marietta vs Maryville (South) 8:00pm 101-77
Chatham @ North Central (Central) 8:30pm 48-77
No Great Lakes teams face each other and every region is represented except for the East.
5-4 record in the first round
Baldwin Wallace @ Oswego St (East) 7:00pm
Wooster vs Wheaton (Central) 7:00pm
Wittenberg @ Guilford (South) 7:00pm
Marietta vs Arcadia (Mid-Atlantic) 7:00pm
Capital @ Augustana (Central) 7:00pm
To dissect that GL first round record further:
OAC 3-0
NCAC 2-0
MIAA 0-1
HCAC 0-1
PAC 0-1
AMCC 0-1
The OAC and NCAC continue to be the two best conferences in the region. ;)
Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2019, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2019, 03:58:11 PM
Schedule for the GL tonight:
Baldwin Wallace vs Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic) @ Oswego St 5:30pm 75-61
Wittenberg vs Emory (South) @ Guilford 5:30pm 100-88
Hanover vs Wheaton (IL) (Central) @ Wooster 5:30pm 73-84
Albion vs Loras (West) @ North Central 6:30pm 64-75
Capital vs UW-Platteville (Central) @ Augustana 6:30pm 78-76 OT
Penn St-Behrend @ Hamilton (Northeast) 7:30pm 70-72
Wooster vs Baruch (Atlantic) 7:30pm 81-57
Marietta vs Maryville (South) 8:00pm 101-77
Chatham @ North Central (Central) 8:30pm 48-77
No Great Lakes teams face each other and every region is represented except for the East.
5-4 record in the first round
Baldwin Wallace @ Oswego St (East) 7:00pm
Wooster vs Wheaton (Central) 7:00pm
Wittenberg @ Guilford (South) 7:00pm
Marietta vs Arcadia (Mid-Atlantic) 7:00pm
Capital @ Augustana (Central) 7:00pm
To dissect that GL first round record further:
OAC 3-0
NCAC 2-0
MIAA 0-1
HCAC 0-1
PAC 0-1
AMCC 0-1
The OAC and NCAC continue to be the two best conferences in the region. ;)
Here's to rooting for an all-Ohio, all-OAC/NCAC Section Finals from (presumably) Ban Johnson Arena next weekend!
Quote from: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2019, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2019, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2019, 03:58:11 PM
Schedule for the GL tonight:
Baldwin Wallace vs Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic) @ Oswego St 5:30pm 75-61
Wittenberg vs Emory (South) @ Guilford 5:30pm 100-88
Hanover vs Wheaton (IL) (Central) @ Wooster 5:30pm 73-84
Albion vs Loras (West) @ North Central 6:30pm 64-75
Capital vs UW-Platteville (Central) @ Augustana 6:30pm 78-76 OT
Penn St-Behrend @ Hamilton (Northeast) 7:30pm 70-72
Wooster vs Baruch (Atlantic) 7:30pm 81-57
Marietta vs Maryville (South) 8:00pm 101-77
Chatham @ North Central (Central) 8:30pm 48-77
No Great Lakes teams face each other and every region is represented except for the East.
5-4 record in the first round
Baldwin Wallace @ Oswego St (East) 7:00pm
Wooster vs Wheaton (Central) 7:00pm
Wittenberg @ Guilford (South) 7:00pm
Marietta vs Arcadia (Mid-Atlantic) 7:00pm
Capital @ Augustana (Central) 7:00pm
To dissect that GL first round record further:
OAC 3-0
NCAC 2-0
MIAA 0-1
HCAC 0-1
PAC 0-1
AMCC 0-1
The OAC and NCAC continue to be the two best conferences in the region. ;)
Here's to rooting for an all-Ohio, all-OAC/NCAC Section Finals from (presumably) Ban Johnson Arena next weekend!
I really think Wooster, Etta, and BW have great shots to get to the 2nd weekend tonight. If Capital can pull off the upset in Rock Island tonight, you could have 4 Great Lakers battling it out next weekend to go to Fort Wayne. I think all 4 would be happy with that scenario and each would feel like they could get through.
Marietta would be in the seat to host as they would be the highest regionally ranked team in the group. Lot of basketball tonight to play though before we get into this discussion.
No. Wooster would be the lead to host because the trip from Augustana to Marietta is 604 miles. To Wooster is right on the 500 mile radius and may give the committee the ability to bus over flight.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2019, 04:17:30 PM
No. Wooster would be the lead to host because the trip from Augustana to Marietta is 604 miles. To Wooster is right on the 500 mile radius and may give the committee the ability to bus over flight.
I think that he's talking about the four-GL-teams scenario -- Baldwin-Wallace, Capital, Marietta, Wooster -- that he mentioned in the first paragraph.
Sorry for the rant, but for years it has amazed me that following the completion of the first round games there is so much talk on these boards about who is going to host the regionals, rather than discussion about the games to get to the regionals. And yes, D3 has limitations about hosting due to travel costs and a 500 mile "rule". But it's been that way for years, and will probably be for many more.
How about some thoughts or insights on the matchups, or anything about the actual games?
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on March 02, 2019, 05:19:48 PM
Sorry for the rant, but for years it has amazed me that following the completion of the first round games there is so much talk on these boards about who is going to host the regionals, rather than discussion about the games to get to the regionals. And yes, D3 has limitations about hosting due to travel costs and a 500 mile "rule". But it's been that way for years, and will probably be for many more.
How about some thoughts or insights on the matchups, or anything about the actual games?
As someone whose team is never involved I don't worry about 2nd weekend hosting until we reach that point. Too much going on Friday and Saturday to deal with potential hosting duties. If your team has a possibility to host I can understand a little discussion but it does get a bit overwhelming.
I'll take BW, Wooster, Witt, and Marietta to win tonight with Capital losing.
My picks are:
Pomona-Pitzer upsetting Whitman
Williams over Gwynedd Mercy
Chris Newport over Alfred
Hamilton over Moravian
Amherst over Rochester
Nichols edging Rowan
Swarthmore over MIT
Randolph-Macon over York (PA)
Nebraska Wesleyan over St Thomas
Wittenberg knocking off Guilford
UW-Oshkosh over Northwestern
Loras over North Central
Augustana over Capital
Wooster over Wheaton
Marietta over Arcadia
Baldwin Wallace beating Oswego
Here's a visual of how the Great Lakes region stacks up by my efficiency ratings as we approach the new year. The numbers can be interpreted as number of points better or worse than an average Division III team per 100 possessions. I tried to group teams together across conferences if they were within ~1 point of efficiency margin. For context, home court advantage is worth about 5 points of efficiency margin.
(Click image to embiggen.)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMfJ-NKXkAMhvHt?format=png&name=large)
The 4th annual Great Lakes Invitational will take place November 20-21, 2020 back on the campus of Marietta College.
The 2020 Field:
Great Lakes: Marietta, Wilmington, La Roche, Wabash
Outside: St. Thomas, Whitman, Emory, Randolph Macon
https://pioneers.marietta.edu/news/2019/12/27/great-lakes-invitational-returns-to-ban-johnson-arena-in-2020.aspx
First Regional Rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-first
Predicting the second set of Regional Rankings in the GL:
1. Mount Union, .870 / .545 / 6-0
2. Wittenberg, .957 / 0.495 / 2-1
3. Marietta, .826 / .534 / 4-3
4. Wooster, .739 / .560 / 4-3
5. Albion, .826 / .533 / 0-2
6. Wabash, .696 / .539 / 1-4
7. John Carroll, .652 / .517 / 2-3
8. Pitt-Greensburg, .833 / .473 / 0-0
9. Hanover, .682 / .502 / 1-1
Dropping Out?
Transylvania, .652 / .512 / 0-3
In the mix?
La Roche, .739 / .471 / 1-0
With the way the HCAC has beat itself up I'm surprised anyone is still in the conversation of getting ranked.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 18, 2020, 07:59:47 PM
With the way the HCAC has beat itself up I'm surprised anyone is still in the conversation of getting ranked.
It has been a great season in the HCAC with so much balance, but agree that it does not make for good regional rankings conversation.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2020, 04:12:39 PM
Predicting the second set of Regional Rankings in the GL:
1. Mount Union, .870 / .545 / 6-0
2. Wittenberg, .957 / 0.495 / 2-1
3. Marietta, .826 / .534 / 4-3
4. Wooster, .739 / .560 / 4-3
5. Albion, .826 / .533 / 0-2
6. Wabash, .696 / .539 / 1-4
7. John Carroll, .652 / .517 / 2-3
8. Pitt-Greensburg, .833 / .473 / 0-0
9. Hanover, .682 / .502 / 1-1
Dropping Out?
Transylvania, .652 / .512 / 0-3
In the mix?
La Roche, .739 / .471 / 1-0
I'd rather see Marietta ahead of Wittenberg.
Anyone after 4 seems like a place holder. Albion's an iffy Pool C if they don't win the MIAA. A very shallow region this year.
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2020, 11:24:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2020, 04:12:39 PM
Predicting the second set of Regional Rankings in the GL:
1. Mount Union, .870 / .545 / 6-0
2. Wittenberg, .957 / 0.495 / 2-1
3. Marietta, .826 / .534 / 4-3
4. Wooster, .739 / .560 / 4-3
5. Albion, .826 / .533 / 0-2
6. Wabash, .696 / .539 / 1-4
7. John Carroll, .652 / .517 / 2-3
8. Pitt-Greensburg, .833 / .473 / 0-0
9. Hanover, .682 / .502 / 1-1
Dropping Out?
Transylvania, .652 / .512 / 0-3
In the mix?
La Roche, .739 / .471 / 1-0
I'd rather see Marietta ahead of Wittenberg.
Anyone after 4 seems like a place holder. Albion's an iffy Pool C if they don't win the MIAA. A very shallow region this year.
Marietta and Wittenberg will be very close in my mind. Does the SOS and rRRO for Marietta overturn the WP% advantage Wittenberg has.
Marietta and Wittenberg could probably go either way.
the RvRROs are:
Wittenberg:
W Wabash
W Wooster
L Wooster
Marietta:
W Albion
W John Carroll
W Transylvania (could drop out?)
W York (Pa.) (5th in MA)
L John Carroll
L Mount Union
L Mount Union
I don't know if it's instructive, or if the RACs look at this at all, but stripping out conference games from RvRRO gives Wittenberg nothing and Marietta wins over Albion, York PA, and Transylvania, which looks better.
If they go to secondary criteria, Wittenberg is doomed. NCSOS: is .363 (OOF!) vs. .596 for Marietta.
We still doing once ranked always ranked or no?
Wittenberg plays at Wabash tonight. Figure a Witt win probably knocks Wabash out for next week but maybe not.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2020, 12:30:35 PM
We still doing once ranked always ranked or no?
Wittenberg plays at Wabash tonight. Figure a Witt win probably knocks Wabash out for next week but maybe not.
It is not once ranked always ranked, but the final two rankings -- next week and the final week -- will both count for that.
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2020, 12:30:35 PM
We still doing once ranked always ranked or no?
Wittenberg plays at Wabash tonight. Figure a Witt win probably knocks Wabash out for next week but maybe not.
Only team ranked next week (week 3) and the final ranking on March 1st will be counted as "ranked" opponents for vRRO purposes. Each ranking counts only the week before and the current ranking.
Week 2's Regional Rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-second
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 12:36:25 PM
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2020, 12:30:35 PM
We still doing once ranked always ranked or no?
Wittenberg plays at Wabash tonight. Figure a Witt win probably knocks Wabash out for next week but maybe not.
Only team ranked next week (week 3) and the final ranking on March 1st will be counted as "ranked" opponents for vRRO purposes. Each ranking counts only the week before and the current ranking.
As Ryan said ... Week 2's rankings will influence the vRRO for Week 3, but then it's role in all of this is over. The "final" rankings will be influenced by Week 3's ... and then the absolute final rankings are done after vRRO is recalcuated ... and that vRRO will have the Week 3's and the "final" rankings tabulated.
See if can explain it better:
| vRRO Data |
Week 1 | - none - |
Week 2 | Week 1 |
Week 3 | Week 2 |
Final | Week 3 |
Finale/Selections | Week 3 & Final |
Great Lakes
1 Mount Union 20-3 20-3
2 Marietta 19-4 19-4
3 Wittenberg 22-1 22-1
4 Wooster 17-6 17-6
5 Albion 19-4 19-4
6 Wabash 16-7 16-7
7 John Carroll 15-8 15-8
8 Hanover 15-7 16-7
9 Pitt-Greensburg 20-4 20-4
red= losses
Wabash will probably keep its ranking spot which helps Wittenberg. They do host a pretty decent Oberlin team this weekend, might stay ranked even if they lose that one. I don't know where the committee turns for #8/#9, Transylvania maybe, maybe same.
LaRoche, Behrend, Franklin, Grove City all have serious SOS issues.
The Week 3 men's regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-third
Great Lakes AQ's, All 6 are different from last year, Grove City, LaRoche and Transy all won at least a share of their reg. season titles.
OAC Mt. Union
NCAC Wooster
MIAA Adrian
PAC Grove City
AMCC LaRoche
HCAC Transylvania
Great Lakes Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
2019--Wooster, Marietta, Capital
2020--Wittenberg, Marietta
HCAC teams Anderson(2010), Hanover(2011), Transylvania(2012, 2013) received Pool C's from the Midwest Region.
NCAC--14
OAC--10
MIAA--3
UAA--1
AMCC--1
PAC--0
HCAC--4 (all from Midwest Region)
Round 1: 3-5 (1-3 against non GL teams)
Round 2: 2-1
Wittenberg @ Mount Union Fri 7:30pm
This seems as good a place as any to air this small grievance...
How is it that the Great Lakes Invitational does not have a single team in it from anywhere near a Great Lake? Marietta, the host, is a good 2.5 hours from Cleveland... and Lake Erie is definitely the least great of the Great Lakes. Wabash is the closest of the bunch, 2 hours from Lake Michigan, but that's Gary, Indiana, not really a Lake Michigan summer destination. Wilmington and Wittenberg, although both in Ohio, are just as far from Lake Erie as Marietta.
This very cool tournament that I hope continues to succeed either needs a new name or more appropriate representation from teams in the MIAA, CCIW, SUNYAC, and WIAC that are actually near a Great Lake.
Quote from: HOPEful on November 21, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
This seems as good a place as any to air this small grievance...
How is it that the Great Lakes Invitational does not have a single team in it from anywhere near a Great Lake? Marietta, the host, is a good 2.5 hours from Cleveland... and Lake Erie is definitely the least great of the Great Lakes. Wabash is the closest of the bunch, 2 hours from Lake Michigan, but that's Gary, Indiana, not really a Lake Michigan summer destination.
It's also two hours from Indiana Dunes State Park and Indiana Dunes National Park, and the Indiana Dunes are indeed quite a Lake Michigan summer destination.
It could be worse... Look at a map of the Great Lakes Valley Conference. Not a single institution Northeast of I-74 and more schools in Missouri than Illinois and Indiana combined.
I do like the name though.
Quote from: WUPHF on November 21, 2021, 11:28:06 PM
It could be worse... Look at a map of the Great Lakes Valley Conference. Not a single institution Northeast of I-74 and more schools in Missouri than Illinois and Indiana combined.
I do like the name though.
Definitely a much better name than The Ohio River Invitational which would be more geographically appropriate given where Marietta is. Maybe another school closer to the Great Lakes can host in the future.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 21, 2021, 09:58:13 PM
It's also two hours from Indiana Dunes State Park and Indiana Dunes National Park, and the Indiana Dunes are indeed quite a Lake Michigan summer destination.
Fair. Indiana Dunes is a pretty cool park. On a clear day, you can make out the Chicago skyline from the top of the dune or at sunset. I will concede that Wabash is a fringe candidate to legitimately call themselves a "Great Lakes" team.
Quote from: HOPEful on November 21, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
This seems as good a place as any to air this small grievance...
How is it that the Great Lakes Invitational does not have a single team in it from anywhere near a Great Lake? Marietta, the host, is a good 2.5 hours from Cleveland... and Lake Erie is definitely the least great of the Great Lakes. Wabash is the closest of the bunch, 2 hours from Lake Michigan, but that's Gary, Indiana, not really a Lake Michigan summer destination. Wilmington and Wittenberg, although both in Ohio, are just as far from Lake Erie as Marietta.
This very cool tournament that I hope continues to succeed either needs a new name or more appropriate representation from teams in the MIAA, CCIW, SUNYAC, and WIAC that are actually near a Great Lake.
"Great Lakes" is in reference to the D3 Great Lakes region. Tournament creator/host Ryan Whitnable rotates host sites across teams from that region, w/ strong teams from other regions invited (like RMC). Marietta hosted this year...Wabash just announced as the host next year.
Of course, now, we have new regions. What was the Great Lakes region is now, generally, Region 7 - https://www.d3hoops.com/teams/region/7-men. "The Region 7 Invitational" doesn't sound real cool, so not sure what he's gonna do there.
Ryan is the host of "This Week is Great Lakes Basketball" - https://greatlakesbasketball.podbean.com. He joined me on the Q-cast to talk about his tournament (25:34) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDUCCvTVgPk&t=168s.
The tournament was previously hosted by Hope College in 2018, maybe 5 miles from Lake Michigan - can't get much more Great Lakes than that :)
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on November 22, 2021, 08:27:47 AM
The tournament was previously hosted by Hope College in 2018, maybe 5 miles from Lake Michigan - can't get much more Great Lakes than that :)
The Carthage College campus is literally on the Lake Michigan shoreline, so that would be more Great Lakes-y than Hope.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on November 22, 2021, 08:36:06 AM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on November 22, 2021, 08:27:47 AM
The tournament was previously hosted by Hope College in 2018, maybe 5 miles from Lake Michigan - can't get much more Great Lakes than that :)
The Carthage College campus is literally on the Lake Michigan shoreline, so that would be more Great Lakes-y than Hope.
Except not in the Great Lakes region - go figure. At least we no longer have to debate whether a game with Carthage is "In Region"
Ah, the glory days of d3boards.com, when we would try to calculate campus-to-campus distances using the Ludington-to-Manitowoc ferry across Lake Michigan. Good times!
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 22, 2021, 11:31:05 AM
Ah, the glory days of d3boards.com, when we would try to calculate campus-to-campus distances using the Ludington-to-Manitowoc ferry across Lake Michigan. Good times!
It was magical
Quote from: sac on November 22, 2021, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 22, 2021, 11:31:05 AM
Ah, the glory days of d3boards.com, when we would try to calculate campus-to-campus distances using the Ludington-to-Manitowoc ferry across Lake Michigan. Good times!
It was magical
Actually, it was the S.S. Badger :P
My critique is somewhat tongue and cheek.
And I totally understand where the name came from. But to call a tournament Great Lakes with zero representation from Michigan , Wisconsin, or New York... The three states with the most Great Lakes coastline?
Quote from: HOPEful on November 22, 2021, 11:53:58 AM
Quote from: sac on November 22, 2021, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 22, 2021, 11:31:05 AM
Ah, the glory days of d3boards.com, when we would try to calculate campus-to-campus distances using the Ludington-to-Manitowoc ferry across Lake Michigan. Good times!
It was magical
Actually, it was the S.S. Badger :P
You had to be here.
(https://img.etsystatic.com/il/08f8a4/1388525521/il_570xN.1388525521_hi6t.jpg?version=1)
As Bob mentioned, the "Great Lakes" is 100% a reference to the geographical region of the old "Great Lakes Region (now Region 7) and was meant to be hosted by schools in the MIAA, NCAC, HCAC, AMCC, PAC, and OAC.
I would be lying if I said I've debated at times to include schools outside that basketball "region" to include any school in a state that touches a Great Lake. Would be hard to turn down an offer from a CCIW or a WIAC school that approached me to host the event. But for the time being, it will remain hosted by schools which are now in Region 7 (Wabash will host in 2022, an unannounced school has agreed to host in 2023, and a pitch is being made for 2024).
Beyond that, who knows?
It's been a good tournament. Glad to hear it's continuing.
In honor of the late great Prince, I propose the tournament be renamed...
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c91030aa70af1ec04e9a1e1a6368a15?rik=G2tvzZCxEOeaSQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.warpaths2peacepipes.com%2fimages%2flake.jpg&ehk=mAcs4vXj0LMLwC%2b%2bTPLioe7jdrCNO%2f1T%2bKbFtbTZi4M%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
and referred to as "The tournament formerly known as the Great Lake Invitational"
Week 2 Regional Rankings - which are ranked now: https://d3hoops.com/notables/2022/02/men-regional-rankings-first
Region 7 AQ's
OAC Marietta
NCAC Wabash
MIAA Hope
PAC Washington & Jefferson
AMCC Medaille
Region 7/Great Lakes Region Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
2019--Wooster, Marietta, Capital
2020--Wittenberg, Marietta
2022--Mt. Union, Case Western, Heidelberg, Calvin
HCAC was in Great Lakes from roughly 2015 to 2021 and did not receive any Pool C bids.
NCAC--14
OAC--12
MIAA--4
UAA--2
AMCC--1
PAC--0
Region 7 AQ's
OAC Mt. Union
NCAC Wabash
MIAA Hope
PAC Chatham
AMCC LaRoche
UAA Case Western
Region 7/Great Lakes Region Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
2019--Wooster, Marietta, Capital
2020--Wittenberg, Marietta
2022--Mt. Union, Case Western, Heidelberg, Calvin
2023--John Carroll
HCAC was in Great Lakes from roughly 2015 to 2021 and did not receive any Pool C bids.
NCAC--14
OAC--13
MIAA--4
UAA--2
AMCC--1
PAC--0
Region 7 AQ's
OAC John Carroll
NCAC Wabash
MIAA Hope
PAC Geneva
AMCC LaRoche
UAA Case Western
Region 7/Great Lakes Region Pool C's
2008--Capital, Wooster
2009--Capital, Carnegie-Mellon
2010--John Carroll
2011--Wittenberg, PSU-Behrend
2012--Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2013--Wooster
2014--Hope, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan
2015--Marietta, John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster
2016--Marietta, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Hope
2017--Hope
2018--Wooster, Marietta
2019--Wooster, Marietta, Capital
2020--Wittenberg, Marietta
2022--Mt. Union, Case Western, Heidelberg, Calvin
2023--John Carroll
2024--Trine, Calvin, Carnegie-Mellon
HCAC was in Great Lakes from roughly 2015 to 2021 and did not receive any Pool C bids.
NCAC--14
OAC--13
MIAA--6
UAA--3
AMCC--1
PAC--0