BB: Top Teams in West Region

[Ron Boerger]

It's a strict numerical formula.  The non-pool A teams will be selected in ranked numerical order until no pool C bids remain.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

It's a strict numerical formula.  The non-pool A teams will be selected in ranked numerical order until no pool C bids remain.

Sure, but who controls the formula, the data it's being fed, and the results it spits out? I won't accept any rankings or values I disgree with unless Frank Pericolosi or Scott Winterburn can replicate the alleged rankings with a calculator and graph paper.

[Riley Zayas]

It's a strict numerical formula.  The non-pool A teams will be selected in ranked numerical order until no pool C bids remain.

Sure, but who controls the formula, the data it's being fed, and the results it spits out? I won't accept any rankings or values I disgree with unless Frank Pericolosi or Scott Winterburn can replicate the alleged rankings with a calculator and graph paper.

Nobody is "controlling" the formula. It's a numerical formula that has been publicly published to the public. And there is no way for the committee to change that formula in any form or fashion. The data is purely the results of all D3 games, so there's no manual input of any results into the system.

I only say that because the idea that the committee could manipulate data to somehow alter who gets in is just false. As we've seen in fall and winter sports, NPI can be replicated to a T by non-committee members (such as Matt and Zac Snyder and Scott Peterson), which tells you that it's a completely straightforward approach from the NCAA based purely on the NPI information that has been published.

[Bmo]

If you want to dive into the numbers that make up NPI, you can. 

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/44671

It's not obvious, but if you click on a team's NPI Rank, it will provide the details of each game that contributes to the team's total NPI calculation.

Some slight movements in the region 10 bubble with today's report. 

Pomona drops one spot from 39 to 40.

McMurry, on the strength of the Huntington win, moves up one spot to 41.

Cal Lutheran drops one spot to 49.

[Ralph Turner]

If you want to dive into the numbers that make up NPI, you can. 

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/44671

It's not obvious, but if you click on a team's NPI Rank, it will provide the details of each game that contributes to the team's total NPI calculation.

Some slight movements in the region 10 bubble with today's report. 

Pomona drops one spot from 39 to 40.

McMurry, on the strength of the Huntington win, moves up one spot to 41.

Cal Lutheran drops one spot to 49.

McMurry jumped ETBU (Pool A bid); they are only 0.008 points apart. McMurry beat Huntingdon in Shreveport on 02/07/2025.
By my assessment, McMurry is still the #22 bid, even at #41... too close to the bubble!

[Bmo]

I don't think any team with an NPI of 35 up can feel too comfortable.  Case in point, Keystone, on the strength of a single new win against 176th-ranked Hobart and some favorable secondary results, improved from 51 (NPI 56.399) to 44 (NPI 56.649).  With so many conference tournament games left to play, primarily amongst teams in the upper 1/3 of NPI, there could be some wild swings from where things currently sit.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

It's a strict numerical formula.  The non-pool A teams will be selected in ranked numerical order until no pool C bids remain.

Sure, but who controls the formula, the data it's being fed, and the results it spits out? I won't accept any rankings or values I disgree with unless Frank Pericolosi or Scott Winterburn can replicate the alleged rankings with a calculator and graph paper.

Nobody is "controlling" the formula. It's a numerical formula that has been publicly published to the public. And there is no way for the committee to change that formula in any form or fashion. The data is purely the results of all D3 games, so there's no manual input of any results into the system.

I only say that because the idea that the committee could manipulate data to somehow alter who gets in is just false. As we've seen in fall and winter sports, NPI can be replicated to a T by non-committee members (such as Matt and Zac Snyder and Scott Peterson), which tells you that it's a completely straightforward approach from the NCAA based purely on the NPI information that has been published.

I dunno, still smells fishy to me. Why would a comic book moviemaker be evaluating allegedly "unbiased" numeric numeral formulas involving numbers for D3 baseball rankings? Sounds like they're just trying to slap  a big name on the process to give it credibility.

You say this formula is publicly published to the public. Well, I'm the public, and they didn't publish it to me. And guess what? The SCIAC is comprised completely of private institutions. Maybe that's why they seem to have a target on their back.......

We can go back and forth all day with our opinions about what they're doing behind closed doors with this "formula", but until the NCAA is willing to show us what's under the hood and provide some transparency in the process, I'll keep my head in the sand thank you very much.

[Ron Boerger]

What's under the hood is totally published.  Please leave the unfounded conspiracy theories at home.

[Riley Zayas]

I'll just leave this here for those interested.

Complete NPI report from the NCAA, detailing the dials being used for the formula AND explanation for how the committee decided on each specific dial: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/baseball/d3/2024-25D3MBA_NPIReport.pdf

If you're interested in going further in-depth, this is an NPI webinar from the NCAA for all interested (targeted at coaches, SIDs, ADs specifically), detailing the above information directly from those who are overseeing NPI for D3 Baseball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG_TXUXLb1c

This info is readily available to the public...found it in about 30 seconds with a google search at the beginning of this season.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

What's under the hood is totally published.  Please leave the unfounded conspiracy theories at home.

Oh all of a sudden it's a "conspiracy theory" to be skeptical of a bunch of math some nerds at the NCAA put together? The same NCAA that just settled a multi-BILLION dollar lawsuit primarily alleging that D3 baseball players weren't getting paid enough? Yeah, sure, I'm the crazy one.

Oh and what's that? Per the NCAA's own FAQs, Regional Advisory Committees are still in charge of "ensuring that results are populating
correctly into the database"?? [*SARCASTICALLY*] Hmmmm. No chance for malfeasance there!

Anyway, SCIAC play-in tomorrow between Redlands and Cal Lu. Winner gets La Verne, loser gets to sit at home praying that the NPI looks favorably upon them in a few days. And that whatever formula is being used (which, again, is a COMPLETE mystery) isn't being abused by RACs taking blank envelopes full of cash from the east coast d3 oligarchy.

[DickWhitman]

Is it me, or were there no Region 10 players on the D3 team of the week this week? I'm sure there had to be at least a player or two that deserved a spot on the list.

[Ralph Turner]

McM needs Cal Lu to beat Redlands and then go 2 & BBQ. The thinking is the Redlands loss to Cal which would sustain 2 more losses would drop the Redlands' NPI of 57.015 below McMurry's 56.805.

McMurry beat Rhodes in February and might get a bump from a good SAA tourney from the Lynx.

[DickWhitman]

Redlands will likely beat Cal Lu and has a good chance of winning the second game against La Verne. Based on the current NPI, I think the SCIAC gets 4 teams in. PP and Redlands should both pick up at least 1 win in the SCIAC. My guess is PP will play CMS in the championship game, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Redlands sneak in there as well.

[GU1999]

It's a strict numerical formula.  The non-pool A teams will be selected in ranked numerical order until no pool C bids remain.

Sure, but who controls the formula, the data it's being fed, and the results it spits out? I won't accept any rankings or values I disgree with unless Frank Pericolosi or Scott Winterburn can replicate the alleged rankings with a calculator and graph paper.

Nobody is "controlling" the formula. It's a numerical formula that has been publicly published to the public. And there is no way for the committee to change that formula in any form or fashion. The data is purely the results of all D3 games, so there's no manual input of any results into the system.

I only say that because the idea that the committee could manipulate data to somehow alter who gets in is just false. As we've seen in fall and winter sports, NPI can be replicated to a T by non-committee members (such as Matt and Zac Snyder and Scott Peterson), which tells you that it's a completely straightforward approach from the NCAA based purely on the NPI information that has been published.

I dunno, still smells fishy to me. Why would a comic book moviemaker be evaluating allegedly "unbiased" numeric numeral formulas involving numbers for D3 baseball rankings? Sounds like they're just trying to slap  a big name on the process to give it credibility.

You say this formula is publicly published to the public. Well, I'm the public, and they didn't publish it to me. And guess what? The SCIAC is comprised completely of private institutions. Maybe that's why they seem to have a target on their back.......

We can go back and forth all day with our opinions about what they're doing behind closed doors with this "formula", but until the NCAA is willing to show us what's under the hood and provide some transparency in the process, I'll keep my head in the sand thank you very much.

I read this and laughed thinking to myself, this guy is doing a pretty funny bit.  Then i read the response and now I am not sure.  Anyway, thanks for the laugh i guess.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

I read this and laughed thinking to myself, this guy is doing a pretty funny bit.  Then i read the response and now I am not sure.  Anyway, thanks for the laugh i guess.

I'm glad someone on here has a sense of humor