In case you missed it, here is a link to this week's D3 Datacast: https://youtu.be/55ec9q_CNB8

There was a lot to cover this week!
-Full rundown of the opening weekend
-Efficiency ratings deep-dive into the Sweet 16 matchups
-Overall round-by-round odds to advance for every remaining team
-New slate of five games to pick against the computer line
-Mailbag!

Can't say I'm too bothered seeing another 5th year/grad transfer loaded UAA team bow out early relative to their expectations. 

Another UAA blowout.  Not one UAA winning a third game despite hearing all year how it's the best conference in the country.  All those 5th years and grad transfers along with regional ranking advantages all added up to...not much. 

Quote from: stlawus on March 08, 2024, 08:57:01 PMAnother UAA blowout.  Not one UAA winning a third game despite hearing all year how it's the best conference in the country.  All those 5th years and grad transfers along with regional ranking advantages all added up to...not much. 

And that's still an improvement from the utter disaster last year when they had 5 in the tournament, won a total of 2 games and no one played the 2nd weekend.

I try to be a positive person and not be one to drag or disparage, but it gets a bit obnoxious seeing all the conference tribalism which seems to get dialed up even higher when it comes to the UAA.  This league has just about every advantage possible in the world of D3 when it comes to recruiting, scheduling, regional rankings and the opportunity to get 5th year players, yet two years in a row they crash out despite all the attention they got throughout the whole season for being the supposed best league in the nation.   These teams should be good given the aforementioned advantages, so it baffles me that some have to continuously play the league up as if they are experiencing newfound success after a down era of being underdogs. 

One or two games can be explained by typical NCAA tournament variance.  But two straight years of disappointment?  That's not variance, that's a trend.   2 years in a row with majorly suspect UAA teams getting bids, which coincided with 2 years of a UAA coach being the vice chair and chair of the national committee.  2 years in a row both of those teams losing their first round games and the rest of the league bowing out early as well, along with undeserving UAA teams getting regionally ranked at the expense of deserving teams.  The highest level of math I took in college was only calc 3, but I can still work out the equations here.

I'm not defending the the UAA at all. I do think there's an advantage of having conference teams in multiple regions. People have also complained about the perceived advantage of the NESCAC only playing a single round robin. Yawn. It happens every year. Outside of CWRU, what other UAA team took advantage of mass transfers? Honestly, a lot of non-UAA schools can offer student-athletes a 5th/grad/Covid year, from what I understand. What's the definition of "best conference" anyway? Most teams in the tournament? Teams in the Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final Four? Is it top to bottom? I don't think it's a disappointment to have half the conference's teams that made the tournament make the Sweet 16. Sure, both lost, but so did 48 other teams that didn't make the 2nd weekend. Is the ARC a disappointment? They got 4 teams in and only 1 made the Sweet 16. It sounds like the UAA is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't succeed, then they don't deserve their bids. If they do succeed, then it's only because they have an unfair advantage.

Nobody hyped the ARC up as being the best conference in the country.  The UAA was.  NYU started 3 5th year players who were all transfers, it wasn't just Case.  Both of those teams garnered attention as being pre-season favorites to win the national championship.  The ARC also doesn't have teams regionally ranked with .600 or lower winning percentages like the UAA did. Chicago was 13-12 and were in the last regional rankings! 

Did you see Region 8?  Chicago deserved to be ranked there.

Who knew finishing among the last 16 teams in the country was a disappointment or crashing out? Did something change?

I have seen Sweet 16 banners in some gyms, but I guess those should be taken down.

As for the UAA, they have long been among the Top 3-5 leagues, but have always typically had a Top 3-5 and bottom 3-5 with far more distance between the top and bottom teams than what we have seen over the past two seasons.

I am not sure why it is controversial to refer to the UAA as the best leave in Division III.  The certainly were top to bottom.  But with success comes scrutiny so, good with the bad...

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 08, 2024, 10:52:08 PMDid you see Region 8?  Chicago deserved to be ranked there.

D3 Datacast had the top 6 spot on then had Chicago 11th behind Hanover, Transylvania, Carthage, and Fontbonne.
Massey for reference has all 7 ranked teams but flipped 2-3, 4-5, and 6-7 putting Chicago ahead of St Norbert in 6th.

It's really hard to gauge Chicago vs other teams in the region. They have an absolutely awful record (for a regionally ranked team) but an absurd number of RRO and a better SoS than the other teams you might stick ahead of them.

I think the datacast data-based ranking had Chicago ranked 8th after the regular season ended.

I just mean based on how the committee was prioritizing things this year (which is the only metric that matters for Regional Ranking), Chicago was in the right spot.  They had big wins and nobody else had super great resumes.  I'd also say, given the eye test, they're at least as good, if not better than any of the other teams near the bottom of that ranking.

Do I think it should be done this way?  I don't really think regional rankings are worth anything anymore.  Teams are essentially competing and being measured nationally.  At the very least we need a better metric for evaluating strength of wins.

Congrats to Guilford! That was a tough game. Very tough. And kudos to CNU freshmen, scoring 60% of the Captain's points. This is going to be a very special team going forward.

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 09, 2024, 11:04:48 AMI just mean based on how the committee was prioritizing things this year (which is the only metric that matters for Regional Ranking), Chicago was in the right spot.  They had big wins and nobody else had super great resumes.  I'd also say, given the eye test, they're at least as good, if not better than any of the other teams near the bottom of that ranking.

Do I think it should be done this way?  I don't really think regional rankings are worth anything anymore.  Teams are essentially competing and being measured nationally.  At the very least we need a better metric for evaluating strength of wins.

The CCIW usually has 4 teams in the regional rankings. Obviously the CCIW and the WIAC (region 9) were way down. So maybe Chicago being in the rankings isn't really due to them and their stellar resume.

Trinity, Guilford and Trine are all in the Final Four, along with HSU. The first 3 teams didn't even make the tournament last year.

Calvin, Nebraska Wesleyan and Platteville were in the Elite 8 with CNU. The first 3 teams didn't even make the tournament last year.

So, 6 of the Elite 8 teams didn't make the tournament last year.

Mount Union and Whitewater were in the Final Four last year and didn't make the tournament this year.

Oshkosh, Wheaton IL and Nichols were in the Elite 8 last year and didn't make the tournament this year.