Bumblin' B's

[Gregory Sager]

Thanks, as always, for your detective work on the NCAA's goings-on, Ralph.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks, as always, for your detective work on the NCAA's goings-on, Ralph.

Thanks, Greg!


Pool B projections for 2009-10...

Thirty-four Pool B teams in 2008-09,

Plus two new members in 2009-10 going to Pool B (Mitchell in the NECC and Presentation in the UMAC) make 36 Pool B's.

Minus 8 Landmark members going to Pool A equals 28.

The Access ratio is 9.30 (and may not change very much)

28 divided by 9.30 = 3.01 which truncates to 3 bids.

(395 teams plus 2 teams minus Maryville MO = 396 teams divided by 6.5 teams per bid = 60.92 bids which truncates to 60 bids.  That should mean 40 Pool A conferences, 3 Pool B bids and 17 Pool C bids.)



Pool B projections for 2010-11...

28 Pool B members plus 3 new Pool B's of the 6 schools in this class: Lancaster Bible PA  (Indep), Lyndon State VT (NAC),  St Vincent PA (PresAC), SUNY-Morrisville (SUNYAC), LaSierra CA (Indep), North Central MN (Indep) equals 31.

Minus new Pool A conferences NECC (8 members) and UMAC (8 members) equals 15.

15 divided by 9.3 < 1.99 which truncates to 1 bid.

Who wants to admit those other three independents? 


We are at one Pool B bid in 2010-11.

396 teams in 2009-10 plus 6 new teams = 402.

402 divided by 6.5 = 61.85 bids, which truncates to 61 bids in 2010-11.  That should mean 42 Pool A conferences, 1 Pool B bid and 18 Pool C bids in 2010-11.

[hickory_cornhusker]

North Central MN might not be an independent any more when they become a full D3 member/. They are listed as an affiliate member in the UMAC this season. I wouldn't be surprised if they became a full member by 2010-2011. The biggest obstacle I see for them joining is it would mean the UMAC would have to totally reformat their schedule. They currently use travel partners much like the UAA does and playds Friday-Staurday every weekend. North Central MN would make 9 and throw the entire thing off.

That would put Pool B a team farther away from getting another bid. With the 9.3 access ratio you have they would need 19 teams. If North Central MN is no longer independent they only have 14 teams. Those other three independents still wouldn't help them.

[Ralph Turner]

North Central MN might not be an independent any more when they become a full D3 member/. They are listed as an affiliate member in the UMAC this season. I wouldn't be surprised if they became a full member by 2010-2011. The biggest obstacle I see for them joining is it would mean the UMAC would have to totally reformat their schedule. They currently use travel partners much like the UAA does and playds Friday-Staurday every weekend. North Central MN would make 9 and throw the entire thing off.

That would put Pool B a team farther away from getting another bid. With the 9.3 access ratio you have they would need 19 teams. If North Central MN is no longer independent they only have 14 teams. Those other three independents still wouldn't help them.

Thanks hickory cornhusker!  North Central's joining the UMAC has been in the back of my mind since I saw the UMAC schools moving into D3.

One value that North Central can bring to the UMAC is if they sponsor sports that helps the UMAC achieve the automatic qualifier in other sports.  NCU sponsors five sports (M/W XC, M/W TF, M/W BKB, M/W soccer, Baseball and Volleyball) and has softball and men's golf as club sports.  NCU has an enrollment of 1200.  There is NCAA legislation that requires schools with > 1000 students to offer 6 sports.*  NCU may need to make softball and men's golf varsity sports.  NCU would be the 7th men's golf program which would give the UMAC a golf AQ.

NCU's adding football would give the UMAC 6 schools, one shy of the AQ. (Might Macalester affiliate if it meant the chance at an AQ?)

*EDIT:  This legislation is anticipated to be effective in about 2010-11.

[AO]

I'd be very surprised if North Central added football, but I suppose they do manage to field baseball, soccer and track teams without having any outdoor facilities of their own.   

I don't see why Macalester doesn't join the UMAC for football, they played all the UMAC teams this year, and they're not looking like they'll be ready to rejoin the MIAC in football anytime soon.

[Ralph Turner]

I identify these Pool B schools competing for the 3 Pool B bids..

Northeast Region: 8 -- New England Collegiate Conference -7 plus provisional Mitchell.  NECC plus U Maine Presque Isle.  Elms (10-1/9-1 in-region) is the best team in this conference.

East Region: 0

Atlantic Region: 1, USMMA from the Landmark Conference.

Mid-Atlantic Region:  7 Landmark Conference schools.  Catholic 10-2/4-1 in-region is the front-runner.

South Region:  5 (GSAC-4 plus Rust). Perennial power Maryville TN is only 4-6/3-6 in-region.  Piedmont is 4-8/3-7 with 10 regular season in-region games remaining.

Great Lakes:  1 (Finlandia is 2-10/1-2 in-region.

Midwest Region:  0

West Region:  10 (UMAC-7 plus 4th-year provisional Presentation; Neb Wesleyan; UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs; Chapman.)  Chapman looks like it is off to a great start for Pool B consideration.  Chapman is 10-2/8-2 in-region.  Northwestern MN in the UMAC is 8-4/5-3 in region.  Neb Wes is 6-6/2-3.  UCSC is 4-8/4-6 in-region.

My first look at Pool B has:

1) Elms
2) Chapman
3) Catholic

Maryville TN and Northwestern MN are looking in.

[Ralph Turner]

Thru games of Jan 11th, Pool B teams by winning percentage of in-region games.  Three bids will be awarded.  Please see the Handbook for the list of criteria.

Team........................	Conference...	Region....	Overall...	In-Reg...	In-Reg %-age
1) Elms	NECC	NEast	11-1	10-1	.909
2) Chapman	Indep	West	12-2	10-2	.833
3) Northwestern MN	UMAC	West	10-4	7-3	.700
4) Scranton	LAND	MidAtl	9-4	9-4	.692
5) Catholic	LAND	MidAtl	11-3	5-3	.625
6T) Susquehanna	LAND	MidAtl	8-5	6-4	.600
6T) Becker	NECC	NEast	6-4	6-4	.600

EDIT: Thanks to pabegg for calling my attention to Becker.  If they can run the table, then they have a good chance.  I really doubt that Chapman loses 2 more games of the 6 in-region games that remain.  (I have not included a post-season tourney in that total of 6.)  It looks like the threshold for in-region winning percentage will be around .700 or roughly 14-6.

[scottiedoug]

Thanks, Ralph.  You are a helpful fellow.

[pabegg]

Northwestern and Catholic have weaker schedules; I think Susquehanna and Becker are probably ranked above them at this point.

Elms appears to be where Maryville usually is, as a runaway leader for Pool B.

[ronk]

Ralph,
   Do we know if the primary selection criteria are equally weighted? and ,if unequal, what's the ranking of the criteria? The handbook doesn't say. These are  used for regional rankings in addition to Pool B/C selection, also.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,
   Do we know if the primary selection criteria are equally weighted? and ,if unequal, what's the ranking of the criteria? The handbook doesn't say. These are  used for regional rankings in addition to Pool B/C selection, also.

I believe that they are "equally" weighted.

This is looking like Elms and Chapman are leading, but I missed last year, when I thought that Chapman would get in over the Landmark schools.

It may be hard to ignore a 16-2 Chapman this season.

I think that Elms edges Becker and the third B goes to the Landmark champ.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph,
   Do we know if the primary selection criteria are equally weighted? and ,if unequal, what's the ranking of the criteria? The handbook doesn't say. These are  used for regional rankings in addition to Pool B/C selection, also.

That's been an ongoing debate for years.  You're right, the handbook doesn't say.

My strong impression is that (at least most years) in-region winning % is definitely #1, with whatever the strength-of-schedule stand-in-of-the-year may be as #2, and others mainly as tie-breakers.  But someone else may have better insight.

EDIT: I see Ralph beat me to the punch!  The 'official line' seems to be equal weighting, but that hasn't been my impression.

[Ralph Turner]

Please start at post 1247.

Several of us thought that Chapman was going to "eke" in, but Moravian got the 4th bid and promptly "bumbled"!

I respect Mr Ypsi's interpretation of "equal".  I think that the committee gets a "gestalt" of what the data are showing.  We fans on the west bank of the Mississippi River and westward sometimes wonder about "east coast bias".

[sac]

Please start at post 1247.

Several of us thought that Chapman was going to "eke" in, but Moravian got the 4th bid and promptly "bumbled"!

I respect Mr Ypsi's interpretation of "equal".  I think that the committee gets a "gestalt" of what the data are showing.  We fans on the west bank of the Mississippi River and westward sometimes wonder about "east coast bias".

Before worrying about 'east coast bias' maybe you should worry about whether your regional reps know who's in which conference.   

[Ralph Turner]

Please start at post 1247.

Several of us thought that Chapman was going to "eke" in, but Moravian got the 4th bid and promptly "bumbled"!

I respect Mr Ypsi's interpretation of "equal".  I think that the committee gets a "gestalt" of what the data are showing.  We fans on the west bank of the Mississippi River and westward sometimes wonder about "east coast bias".

Before worrying about 'east coast bias' maybe you should worry about whether your regional reps know who's in which conference.   

If I catch the nuance correctly, namely the 2007 Regionals (first and second rounds) at Clinton MS, I think that the bias was Maryville not wanting to play Mississippi College in the first round, and so Oxy was paired with the Choctaws, and Maryville got UMHB.

I think that it went from #1 Mississippi College/#4 UMHB and #2 Oxy/#3Maryville to #1 Mississippi College/#2 Oxy and #3Maryville/#4 UMHB.

Mississippi College Bracket

Messiah (19-6) at Catholic (22-5), Alvernia (23-4) vs. Lincoln (18-8)
Villa Julie (20-7) at Johns Hopkins (23-4), Manhattanville (23-5) vs. Guilford (21-4)
Averett (20-6) at Virginia Wesleyan (23-4), Hood (21-7) vs. Hampden-Sydney (18-10)
Occidental (19-5) at Mississippi College (25-2), Maryville, Tenn. (21-6) vs. Mary Hardin-Baylor (21-6)

Every time I look at the bottom matchup I get more frustrated. So the NCAA "fixed" its error in matching conference opponents up in the first round and instead makes the top two teams in the criteria face each other while the bottom two face each other.

The correct matchup, according to the criteria, would've been to put Occidental against Mary Hardin-Baylor and Maryville against Mississippi College. The makeup of committees past and present makes this "fix" suspicious.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/07/preview.htm