Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

I don't think we've ever had a Pool C selection below .667 winning percentage or a .500 SOS.  Those, historically, are the drop dead lines.

I don't think we've had one the last couple of years, but we've certainly had Pool C selections below .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.

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.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.

I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.

Many committee chairs have not said they "forgive" a team's vRRO due to geography, but they do look further into it. Just as with the Northeast they try not to read too much into a ton of vRROs for some teams. At the same time, they aren't going to reward a west coast team for not playing anyone either. They will treat them as fairly as they can.

[AO]

I don't mean the low RRO totals would be forgiven, but if the committee talks about realities it wasn't like Whitman was ducking anyone nearby. They even got a matchup with Tufts in a California tournament (though they lost). They'll certainly be rooting for the Jumbos to do well in the NESCAC and boost that SOS.

Compare them to St. John's (4-4 vRRO) who didn't play a single RRO in the non-conference.

Well, St. John's did play two NWC teams, just the wrong ones. We also have to remember they play 20 conference games, leaving just 5 nonconference games to play around with. It's not like they have 11-15 NC games to schedule.

Greek has it right.  It's absolutely ridiculous to punish teams for playing in good conferences.  A game is a game, whether played in conference or out.  Compare the common opponents and RRO, don't try to figure out who made a good faith effort to schedule tough.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

But the committee will consider what they want out of all of that. While I understand the argument that it isn't fair to eliminate the conference vRRO, sometimes the committee does that just to get another look at the team from a different perspective.

But I also remember a conversation with a RAC member in 2014 who tried to argue that it wasn't fair that his team only had two or three vRROs considering his conference was "down" that season and his out-of-conference opponents ended up being good, but good enough to be ranked - down from his expectations... in comparison to several teams in another conference who had lots of vRROs because the conference was strong and several members where being ranked accordingly. It seemed to fall on deaf ears when I argued, "well, you guys ranked the other team; don't punish them because you ranked them and reward yourself because you didn't rank other conference teams!"

It is a double-edged sword. I think the committee is more than willing to reward or at least acknowledge a number of vRROs even if they come in conference match-ups that inflate that number (remember the ODAC in 2013 when there was the "once ranked, always ranked?"). However, they also want to get a little more insight into a team who may have a lot of vRROs as a result and not try and be blinded by the "bling" as it where of numbers that are inflated by conference games.

The sames holds true with teams in the Northeast, the committee(s) try and at least grade on a bell curve (maybe?) teams that have far higher vRROs because there are far more teams ranked (yes, more teams to play and you still have to schedule right, but you know my point).

At the same time, the committee isn't dumb. They understand the MIAC is playing 20 games and leaving very little out of conference flexibility and many a committee chair has said they try and understand those situations along with items like geography to better read the data and learn from it. It is truly why they like the term "results" versus regionally ranked opponents because it gives them a ton of flexibility outside of just a WL%.

[fantastic50]

Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
55 teams in Pool C contention
43 bids currently available to this group
Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/


Locks (18)
St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.556/10-0, WE#1
Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.546/5-2, GL#1
Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.531/4-1, MA#1
Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.527/3-1, CE#2
North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.593/3-6, CE#4
Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2

Likely (6, including Stockton moving up)
Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.537/3-3, NE#4

Bubble (19, including Whitman moving down)
Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.533/3-2, SO#2
Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
North Carolina Wesleyan 20-6, 16-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.523/1-1, SO#5
St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
LaGrange 19-7, 16-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool C) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.548/1-4, NE#7
Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7

Longshots (12)
Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#x
East Texas Baptist 21-5, 18-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.783/0.509/0-2, SO#7
Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.508/4-2, AT#4
St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.534/4-5, WE#7
Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/2-6, WE#5
Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7


So far this week, the bubble looks pillowy soft.  For that reason, I can't yet bring myself to drop some teams off the board, even with numbers that would make their chances completely nil.

Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
(Pool C contenders noted)

Friday
ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in semis Fri., but probably a one-bid league
Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri. vs Baruch (out), but probably a one-bid league
CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri., also Geneseo (longshot)
USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

Saturday
GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in final Sat. vs. Albertus Magnus
LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
NJAC: Stockton (likely) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
NWC: Whitworth (lock) in final Sat. vs Pacific Lutheran (out); also Whitman (bubble)
SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

Conferences with no bubble-bursters remaining
CAC: Salisbury (lock) at Christopher Newport (lock) in finals
Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
OAC: John Carroll (lock) at Marietta (lock) in finals; also Mt Union (longshot)

I suspect a lot will change in the next 12 hours!

[bopol]

On Whitman and Pool C in general, right now, things look weaker at the bottom than I remember in the last few years.  Now, there will be upsets, but when I went through my self-picking, I found I was taking teams in the last 4-6 picks that I don't think get picked in the last few years. 

Whitman isn't going to get compared to the teams eligible in 2015, they'll get compared to teams this year and I think they may hold up favorably still.

[Greek Tragedy]

I don't really care if Brooklyn makes it or not, but that seems to be a disagreement here. Maybe I over value vRRO and SOS, though admittedly, I still don't completely understand SOS and it's relation to wins/losses formula. But Brooklyn is .035 better in SOS vs Johnson & Wales and has a 4-2 to 1-0 advantage in results vRRO. I understand that J&W winning % is far superior than Brooklyn's. But I'm probably leaning towards a team with a better SOS and results vRRO over a high winning %.

[Titan Q]

Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
6. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
7. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
8. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
9. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
11. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
13. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
14. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
15. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
16. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
17. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
18. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
19. New Jersey City  0.692/.524/4-2, AT #1
----------
20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6

[KnightSlappy]

Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
6. Trinity (CT)  0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2
7. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
8. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
9. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
10. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
11. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
12. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
13. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
14. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
15. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
17. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
18. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
19. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
----------
20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6

Seems like we're all in general agreement of a safe line being right around #9 Wooster right now.

[fantastic50]

Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
6. Trinity (CT)  0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2
7. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
8. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
9. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
10. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
11. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
12. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
13. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
14. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
15. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
17. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
18. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
19. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
----------
20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6

Seems like we're all in general agreement of a safe line being right around #9 Wooster right now.

After another day where most key games went according to form, I almost upgraded several teams from "likely" to "lock" this morning.  Maybe I'm hesitant only because my team is in that group, but decided that I want to see one more day without undue chaos (and/or semifinal wins by some of them) before doing so.

[hopefan]

You guys are fantastic... but one thing for sure, I couldn't do what I try to do for the SLIAC, and do the research and numbers crunching you guys do too... it'd be a 24 hour a day job....

[Titan Q]

Just realized I had too many NESCAC teams in.  I took Trinity (CT) out - assumed Pool A - and added New Jersey City as my #19.

(Corrected above)

[John Gleich]

I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.

I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.

I don't mean the low RRO totals would be forgiven, but if the committee talks about realities it wasn't like Whitman was ducking anyone nearby. They even got a matchup with Tufts in a California tournament (though they lost). They'll certainly be rooting for the Jumbos to do well in the NESCAC and boost that SOS.

Compare them to St. John's (4-4 vRRO) who didn't play a single RRO in the non-conference.

I recall hearing a national chair on Hoopsville discuss the non-conference vs conference RRO a few years ago... and gave more weight to the non-con (which sort of seems right... you have more "control" over your opponents in the non-con, you're stuck with your conference).

While I do understand that to an extent, you still have to play top programs if they're in your conference (and likely twice, if not three times).

[Greek Tragedy]

You guys are fantastic... but one thing for sure, I couldn't do what I try to do for the SLIAC, and do the research and numbers crunching you guys do too... it'd be a 24 hour a day job....

But the pay is second to none!

[gordonmann]

Just realized I had too many NESCAC teams in

No such thing!