MBB: Little East

[Mr. Ypsi]

Albertus's SOS is a really low .435 - I'm still surprised they were placed THAT low, but that would be the reason.

[PressBreaker]

7express your absolutely right. What an absolute joke these regional rankings are. That's a crime that Albertus is in 12th, KEENE IS IN 8th? HOWWWWW? How are all three of the Little East teams ahead of Keene, who has won like 9 or 10 in a row, they beat East Conn and RIC. Western did beat Keene and unfortunately for them didn't show up for a couple of games and lost. There is no way. Oh and let's not forget that little minor game a week ago at Spaulding that Keene State won, against, wait who's that team again? Oh yeah, MIDDLEBURY. Terrible. Keene and West Conn are playing the best of all the Little East schools right now. And yet, RIC, who does have recognition because of the past couple of years, but has lost to both Keene and West Conn, gets ahead? Atleast you can say with Albertus, although I think they should be higher, that they play in a weeeeaak conference.

But Keene 8th? The Little East is a very very good conference, right behind the NESCAC regionally. How is the #1 team (By 2 games) 8th? Anywho, now that I have ranted, hopefully this lights a fire underneath the Owls for their remaining schedule because it is murderers row down the stretch. And now they have even more to prove to the BLIND squirrels ranking the regions.

Going to be a great game Saturday in Danbury with two really quality teams playing well right now!

[warrior]

7express - I'm with you - swap RIC w/Keene - definitely!  The good news is, things should be a lot clearer by the end of next week! 

As for last night's game - for a change, I have to disagree with you and my Eastern buddy ECSUAlum.  The word "choke" never occurred to me.  Choking implies crumbling under pressure.  Yes we missed a bunch of free throws, but Chay and Chris, who missed most of them are just poor free throw shooters.  But look at the rest of their games - Chay had a career night and Chris had 16 pts and 9 rebs!   And what about Jamie and Ham hitting those big 3s down the stretch and Jamie hitting that baseline jumper to put us ahead - choke? Sorry, I don't see it.

Think about it - we take on arguably D3s greatest offensive weapon on his best night ever and we are STILL ahead with 4.5 seconds.  We must have done SOMETHING right.  Both teams played their hearts out and both teams came up with big play after big play.  Perhaps I'm alone here, but I was very proud of our Warriors and believe great things still lie ahead. 

[LECFAN32]

great game last night, atmosphere was unbelievable,not seen in quite sometime,possibly 2004-2005 but from what I heard even that crowd support was more from the city of danbury then the students. really hope it continues as the keene game is just as big upcoming. thought eastern was very sharp through most of the game, jensen had a calf issue in the second half for those who were wondering, and gates is pretty much finished this season.

in my opinion ric and wpi are pretty high considering both lost to west conn, and ric seems to be a good but not great team by even their standards. same can be said for wpi, who is very young and has lost to some of the better teams on their schedule (outside of the mit win, who for the record is a very similar type of team with some bigger slower players who can shoot n have decent skill sets) and  albertus should be a few spots higher not just for beating western but because theyve killed everyone else, and by all accounts of some seriously talented scholarship players, however their league is terrible and clearly holds them back.

keene  should absolutely be higher as well having some very good quality wins ( currently the best quality win in the country ) and their playing the best of ball in the conference with a shortened rotation and toughness, allowing guys to settle into their roles.

in some of the other rankings its tough to fathom staten island ( very mediocre for years in a piss poor conference) beating the team right behind them william patterson, who has transfers from every which way every year  and serious talent in a very competitive league, who is led this year by corey chandler who STARTED at rutgers for 2 years and put up good numbers.. seems fairly obvious if you think what team would win the head to head matchup, as opposed to one team beating york college and hunter twice compared to montclair, kean etc.

[pjunito]

Does anyone know how rankings are determined? What is the formula used, if any?

I don't know how Albertus is slow low.. And the SOS isn't a good reason. They cannot control what conference they play in; agreed it is weak. However, they are undefeated and win by an avg of 17 points. Out of conference they have beaten Becker on the road by 9. They have beated Trinity on the road by 12. And they beat West Conn (they have a good SOS; don't you know) by 22 at home.. That wasn't a typo.. 22 points! They are big (6'8, 6'6, 6'5 starting front court) and talented (They avg 89 points a game). Anyone who has seen them play, will know that they are much better than 12 in the region.

And to be honest; RIC, West Conn, and East Conn are not that great. The SOS are inflated because everyone thinks they are great; when they beat up on each other and play average out of conference opponents.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Does anyone know how rankings are determined? What is the formula used, if any?

I don't know how Albertus is slow low.. And the SOS isn't a good reason. They cannot control what conference they play in; agreed it is weak. However, they are undefeated and win by an avg of 17 points. Out of conference they have beaten Becker on the road by 9. They have beated Trinity on the road by 12. And they beat West Conn (they have a good SOS; don't you know) by 22 at home.. That wasn't a typo.. 22 points! They are big (6'8, 6'6, 6'5 starting front court) and talented (They avg 89 points a game). Anyone who has seen them play, will know that they are much better than 12 in the region.

And to be honest; RIC, West Conn, and East Conn are not that great. The SOS are inflated because everyone thinks they are great; when they beat up on each other and play average out of conference opponents.

The criteria for ranking (and pool C selection) are in the FAQ section of d3hoops.com.  I answered pretty much your same question on the GNAC board - subjectivity is just not a very relevant concern for the committees (though I can't help thinking it carries a little weight); the criteria (including SOS) are very objective.  (How 'good' the criteria are is another discussion! )

[The_Extender]

People have been talking about the Regional Rankings being poorly orchestrated.  To be honest....  Your right!  Those rankings are the biggest pile of horse dung, I have ever seen!!!  Quite frankly, who ever voted and approved these rankings should be ashamed and appalled. 

1) Amherst - Correct
2) Middlebury - Correct
3) Rhode Island College - NOT EVEN CLOSE!
4) Western Connecticut - Maybe 7th, possibly 6th at best!
5) WPI - Overrated
6) Eastern Connecticut - Maybe 9th at best, they just lost to Western, close game but not even close to deserving of this ranking!
7) MIT - regardless of who they have played, there 20 and 1!
8) Keene State - this is insulting to the Owls, there fans, the league and anyone associated with Northeast Rankings.
9) Wesleyan - Correct, good team... making some noise but this is the proper spot for now!
10) Tufts - Overrated.......  I need not say more.  There lucky to be ranked at all.
11) Becker - Good team, not better then Albertus Magnus.  Proper spot for now.
12) Albertus Magnus - Good Team, has good wins...  Got screwed by the clowns who voted for this rankings.

Bottom line, win your conference championship because the clowns who vote for these rankings all have there own agendas....

PS. To my East Conn friends who are in these posts.  It's not personal, its just embarrassing that these rankings came out and could potential hurt schools like Albertus Magnus, Keene State, and MIT.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The_Extender,

Obviously you did not even bother to read my post (just above yours) before your rant.  No one votes on these rankings in the same sense that people vote in a poll.  They apply fairly specific (objective) criteria, put in place by the member institutions.  Pretty much the only room for subjectivity is in how to weight the criteria in cases of a close call.

Whether or not these criteria are 'valid' or the 'best' criteria is a different discussion.  But do familiarize yourself with what the criteria are before libeling the selection committee.

(And, no, I am not a member of the committee, and would not be in the Northeast even if I were on some committee - which I'm not. )

[The_Extender]

Mr. Y,

Get me the information for this so called (objective) criteria!  I can't seem to see where or how the criteria would favor some of these teams are ranked over others.  RIC is a joke at 3, East Conn and West Conn aren't in first place in there league.  MIT is 20 and 1 and Albertus is 20 and 1.  Figure out your criteria and send it to me.  I would be more then happy to be an objective analyst for proper decision making. 

P.S. My rant was warranted. The rankings are a joke!!!   

[Mr. Ypsi]

The criteria are spelled out (both primary and secondary criteria) in the FAQ on d3hoops.com.

They are not MY criteria; they are criteria voted in by d3 member institutions.

[PressBreaker]

Mr. Y you are right in pointing out the criteria, but even following the criteria how does RIC end up higher than Keene, and E
East conn? Keene beat those two teams, has a better record, has played some tough opponents, and has wins equal too if not better than theres. What am I missing out on? They are number one in one of the toughest conferences around. It's very frustrating because I don't see any way that you can arrange the numbers and say that RIC is better than Keene, I just dont see it?

Not to mention West Conn who is also ahead, has lost to two teams with well below 500 records. If it is home wins vs. road wins that is making this big of a discrepency than they need to reavulate the criteria. Oh, Keene beat East Conn at their place, FYI.

I appreciate you approaching it objectively, not all of us do sometimes. But I must side with the Extender. However, we all learn in life you can't rely on others to give you want you want, you have to go take it. So Keene will just have to sweep out the rest of their schedule, which will be more than challenging in order to prove themselves. The rest of their schedule FYI, their opponents combine for a 49-14 record. Maybe that will be good enough. Probably not.

[Mr. Ypsi]

PressBreaker, bear in mind that I am NOT defending how the rankings came out - I am especially surprised at how high RIC is, and how low MIT and AM are.  I didn't check all the SOS numbers (not my region! ), but that seems to clearly be what dinged MIT and AM.  My hunch is that results against regionally-ranked teams is not a factor in the first set of rankings since, afterall, no one is yet ranked!  And things like point differential, 'bad losses', etc. are, officially at least, irrelevant (home vs. away IS factored into SOS).

Actually, I would prefer a bit more subjectivity in the process (trust the committee to use the 'eye test'), but it appears the only subjectivity allowed is deciding how to weight the criteria in the case of close calls.  That is the decision of the d3 member institutions, not a fault of the selection committee.

And I'm only the messenger!  Don't shoot!

[pjunito]

These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2010-11:

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
- See more info on men's SOS below
• 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 selection.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• 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.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III men's and women's basketball committees. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III in-region opponents.

Coaches' polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used as a selection criterion by the basketball committee for selection purposes.



This is what I found at the d3hoops.com website under FAQ. I do understand why a committee will need to lean on an object method to determine the first set of region rankings... (debating may prolong the rankings being posted). What I don't understand is............

1. It seems to me that the only criteria used for the first ranking is SOS.... (since there are no rankings prior to this week and every other criteria is weighed upon how teams are ranked).. So, SOS is the only criteria used... Can this be right or am I reading the formula wrong?

2. If there is a committee; does anyone ask this question: How can a team who is winning their conference not be seeded higher than a team who is 4th?

3. Do these people live in a cave?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Only the last of the primary criteria entails regional ranking, so all could be used (even results against regionally ranked opponents, since results against opponents ranked in a different region is a secondary criterion; nonetheless, my gut hunch is that that last criterion is not used in the first set of rankings, since you could get into infinite loops that way!).

Note the "not in priority order" qualifier: no weighting of the criteria is specified.  'Old hands' have found that regional winning % and SOS, alone, will virtually do the job (though h-to-h can make a big difference).  HOW the criteria are weighted is (theoretically, at least) the ONLY subjectivity the committee possesses.

Two notes:

1. My understanding is that as of this year, 'once ranked, always ranked' is now the standard rather than the 'ranked at the time...' standard.  Pat?  Bueller?  Anyone?

2.  The '50% of games against d3 opponents' is subject to waivers, which seem to be quite routinely granted.

Given the criteria (which include nothing about conference standing, for example), I'll take a pass on your second and third questions!   (Note, please, that I am NOT defending the rankings, per se - I too found some quite odd, even knowing the criteria restraints.)

[Hugenerd]

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
- See more info on men's SOS below
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

First off, Mr. Ypsi, I think there are ranked teams this week, because they take into account the teams ranked this week.  In otherwords, I think this is an iterative process.  Second, they are not being objective, because they are giving each primary criteria an arbitrary, subjective weight.  If all these categories were given the same weight, there is no way they would come up with the rankings they have.  Clearly OWP/OOWP is the most important metric to this committee, but I dont see anything in the published criteria saying it should be.  Albertus beat West Conn by 19 and Becker on the road, and they dont even have a loss to a NE region team, but you put them 8 spots behind West Conn who has lost to 2 sub-0.500 teams and right behind a 4-loss team they beat head-to-head on the road? Anyway, what does a 0.550 mean vs. 0.500 in terms of OWP at this point?  Most teams at this point have played 20 games.  You're telling me playing opponents with an average record of 10.5-9.5 is that much better than playing opponents with an average record of 10-10?  Is that really worth dropping a 20-1 team behind three 4-loss teams.

You can keep saying its objective until you turn blue, but it isnt, because they get to pick and choose from 5 primary criteria, and many more secondary criteria, in any manner in which they please.  Unless they tell me the actual equation they are using to rank teams, if there is one, it wont be truly objective.  And, unfortunately, if there is an equation, I guarantee it is so oversimplified that there is no way it gives you any reasonable insight into how these teams actually stack up.