Bumblin' B's

sac · January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM

Wasn't it just last year the committe had to go back and redo the pairings because the committe didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?

Ralph Turner · January 12, 2009, 09:08:45 PM

Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committee had to go back and redo the pairings because the committee didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?

I will put this on the NCAA staffers. I assume that they are the ones providing the background data to the committee members.

It was 2007.

Mr. Ypsi · January 12, 2009, 11:28:46 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2009, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committee had to go back and redo the pairings because the committee didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?
I will put this on the NCAA staffers. I assume that they are the ones providing the background data to the committee members.

It was 2007.

Results data, maybe. But one wonders about committee members who don't know which teams are in what conference.

That WAS an embarrassment. There is no spinning that one.

scottiedoug · January 13, 2009, 12:10:48 AM

If Maryville were to win out, not counting the GSAC tournamant, they'd be 16 - 6 in region. Given the schedule and the fact that they've about figured out what to do to win, it's possible.

Ralph Turner · January 13, 2009, 08:48:07 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 12, 2009, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2009, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committee had to go back and redo the pairings because the committee didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?
I will put this on the NCAA staffers. I assume that they are the ones providing the background data to the committee members.

It was 2007.

Results data, maybe. But one wonders about committee members who don't know which teams are in what conference.

That WAS an embarrassment. There is no spinning that one.

True.

I cannot find who was the South Region Representative on the National Committee. My link to the 2006-07 NCAA Handbook is no longer valid, and I have not found the new link. So, the (hyperlinks to the) names have been changed to protect the innocent (and the guilty).

Ralph Turner · January 13, 2009, 08:55:04 AM

Quote from: scottiedoug on January 13, 2009, 12:10:48 AM
If Maryville were to win out, not counting the GSAC tournamant, they'd be 16 - 6 in region. Given the schedule and the fact that they've about figured out what to do to win, it's possible.

16-6 gets you to .737. GSAC Tourney wins get you to 18-6, .750

I think that Elms prevails in the NECC.
I think that Chapman will prevail over UCSC and LaSierra in their final games.
Northwestern MN can run the table in the UMAC as easily as Maryville can.
I think that the Landmark Conference will be competitive among Catholic, Susquehanna and Scranton.

Getting into the Top 8 in the South will help, too. You need the 5 ASC-East powers to beat up on each other, and the ODAC to have a brutal slugfest.

Ralph Turner · January 18, 2009, 07:50:30 PM

Thru games of Jan 18th, 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	13-1	12-1	.923
2) Chapman	Indep	West	13-2	11-2	.846
3) Northwestern MN	UMAC	West	12-4	9-3	.750
4) Catholic	LAND	MidAtl	13-3	7-3	.700
5) Scranton	LAND	MidAtl	11-5	11-5	.688
6 Merchant Marine	LAND	Atl	9-6	9-5	.643
7T) Susquehanna	LAND	MidAtl	9-6	7-5	.583
7T) Becker	NECC	NEast	7-5	7-5	.583
9 Maryville TN	GSAC	South	10-6	8-6	.571

EDIT: I have included Maryville, which has 6 more regular season in-region games and a two-game GSAC tournament. It looks like the threshold for in-region winning percentage will be at or above .727 or above 16-6.

Merchant Marine is leading the Landmark Conference with a 5-0 record. Its overall record is 9-6, but I don't think that the loss to Averett is in-region. That makes the in-region record 9-5 (.643).

Corrections are appreciated! Thanks to Eagle-eye Ypsi!

Mr. Ypsi · January 18, 2009, 07:51:34 PM

Ralph, if Northwestern's 9-3 is correct, that is .750, not .700.

pabegg · January 18, 2009, 10:06:33 PM

My earliest run of the Strength of Schedule numbers indicates that the Pool B rankings would be:

Elms
Catholic
Chapman
Scranton
Daniel Webster
Minnesota-Morris
Susquehanna
Northwestern (Minn.)
Merchant Marine
Maryville (Tenn.)

Elms is well ahead of the rest; Catholic and Chapman are clearly ahead of those who follow.

scottiedoug · January 18, 2009, 10:55:36 PM

Maryville won another region game today and is on a role, but there may be too many losses already even if there are no more, which is quite possible given how they played this weekend. Lots of freshmen and they are putting it together.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh · January 20, 2009, 07:53:38 AM

Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committe had to go back and redo the pairings because the committe didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?

sac - that was two seasons ago... Mississippi College was the host site of that major mistake.

Sorry to jump in on the topic a bit late, but since I have seen my fair share of Landmark Conference action, I am going to state publicly that I will be surprised if the Landmark gets any Pool B bid this season. Yes, there are a number of teams that are ranked "high" right now, but don't expect that to stay. I think Catholic may have the leg up on a bid with Scranton coming in second, but every conference team is going to beat on each other a bit. The conference is a bit "even" but "down" this season and I really would be surprised if any teams got into the NCAA Tournament at this point in time.

That being said, I was SHOCKED when TWO teams got into the tournament last season - they of course showed how much they deserved to be there by tanking their first-round games!

scottiedoug · January 20, 2009, 10:50:37 AM

This is a complicated business! I see that Merchant Marine is among the teams that could get a Pool B and that they lost to Averett. Maryville (TN) beat Averett 107 - 68.

ronk · January 20, 2009, 05:34:05 PM

Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on January 20, 2009, 07:53:38 AM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committe had to go back and redo the pairings because the committe didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?
sac - that was two seasons ago... Mississippi College was the host site of that major mistake.

Sorry to jump in on the topic a bit late, but since I have seen my fair share of Landmark Conference action, I am going to state publicly that I will be surprised if the Landmark gets any Pool B bid this season. Yes, there are a number of teams that are ranked "high" right now, but don't expect that to stay. I think Catholic may have the leg up on a bid with Scranton coming in second, but every conference team is going to beat on each other a bit. The conference is a bit "even" but "down" this season and I really would be surprised if any teams got into the NCAA Tournament at this point in time.

That being said, I was SHOCKED when TWO teams got into the tournament last season - they of course showed how much they deserved to be there by tanking their first-round games!

Dmac,
How they did in the tournament had little to do with deserving to be there; somebody had to represent Pool B.

Ralph Turner · January 20, 2009, 05:55:44 PM

Quote from: ronk on January 20, 2009, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on January 20, 2009, 07:53:38 AM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Wasn't it just last year the committe had to go back and redo the pairings because the committe didn't realize two teams were in the same conference?
sac - that was two seasons ago... Mississippi College was the host site of that major mistake.

Sorry to jump in on the topic a bit late, but since I have seen my fair share of Landmark Conference action, I am going to state publicly that I will be surprised if the Landmark gets any Pool B bid this season. Yes, there are a number of teams that are ranked "high" right now, but don't expect that to stay. I think Catholic may have the leg up on a bid with Scranton coming in second, but every conference team is going to beat on each other a bit. The conference is a bit "even" but "down" this season and I really would be surprised if any teams got into the NCAA Tournament at this point in time.

That being said, I was SHOCKED when TWO teams got into the tournament last season - they of course showed how much they deserved to be there by tanking their first-round games!

Dmac,
How they did in the tournament had little to do with deserving to be there; somebody had to represent Pool B.

But I believed that Chapman's numbers, as compared to the criteria, showed that Chapman was more worthy of the Pool B bid.

With the nature of the regional competition, and how hard it is to compare them, was the #2 mid-Atlantic Pool B that much better than the #1 Pool B team across the country, on the west coast?

There were four bids last year. I was ready to give:

--one bid to the best Pool B team in the South, Maryville,
--one bid the best Pool B in the mid-Atlantic, Scranton, the team that won the Landmark Conference tourney,
--one bid to the best team out of the northern half of the country, Aurora, out of the big 12-team Pool B conference, the NATHC,
--and then one to Chapman, the best team in the West.

Just a little "East coast bias" suspected.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh · January 20, 2009, 07:09:18 PM

Landmark got a gift getting two teams last season. Chapman most likely deserved that extra spot. I know their results in the tournament didn't speak to why they got the bids in the first place, but Moravian faced 13-15 John Jay and couldn't win at home - that isn't a good way to "represent" when the conference got a gift. Just the way I look at it.