Bumblin' B's

[oldchap]

What are next year's projections for Elms, Scranton, Chapman, and Susquehanna and the rest of the Bumbler hopefuls?

Chapman will also be better. They are only losing 2 seniors, both non starters. Of course, both will be missed, as one was a tremendous 3 pt shooter (46%) and the other one was bringing a positive attitude, maturity and was a role model for the younger players. However, all five starters are returning, along with some young players who have already had an impact this year. Some of the freshmen on this team have tremendous potential and will bring much needed depth to the squad.

Assuming the coaching staff puts together a strong enough schedule and they stay healthy, they should have a decent shot at a Pool B bid.

[Pat Coleman]

I overestimated Elms, having them reach the championship game.

Of what?

[Ralph Turner]

Final summary -- Bumblin' B's 2009

Maryville LOST at Trinity TX, 64-68 on Mar 5th.
Elms LOST to SUNYIT 77-85.
Scranton LOST to Brandeis 60-75.

[Ralph Turner]

Projection for 2009-10 for the Bumblin' B's.

Ralph, how many Bs are we looking at this year - or is that subject to change in February?

So far, I identify these Pool B schools.

Northeast Region: 9 -- New England Collegiate Conference -7 plus 8, including provisional new member Mitchell.  NECC plus U Maine Presque Isle.  (Year #1 (2008-09) in Pool B for the NECC as a conference.)

East Region: 0

Atlantic Region: 0 1 (USMMA from the Landmark Conference)

Mid-Atlantic Region:  0 7 (Landmark Conference schools.  This (2008-09) should be the last year in Pool B for the Landmark Conference.)

South Region:  5 (GSAC-4 plus Rust).  (UDallas is now an affiliate of the NEAC.)

Great Lakes:  1 (Finlandia)

Midwest Region:  0

West Region:  11 (UMAC- 7 8 plus 4th-year provisional including new member Presentation; Neb Wesleyan; UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs; Chapman.)  (This is the first year (2008-09) as a new conference for the UMAC.)

"The Provisional Pipeline" will contains 14 schools in years 2-4 of the provisional status.

I count 32 26 schools in Pool B.  That should mean 3 Pool B bids[/b].  In 2009-10, the Landmark goes Pool A.  In 2010-11, the NECC and the UMAC go to Pool A.  Only two provisional schools that become eligible in 2010-11 are not aligned with conferences.  In the 2010-11 season, I count 13 schools in Pool B.  (UMPI, Lancaster Bible, the GSAC-4, Rust, Finlandia, North Central MN, Neb Wes, Chapman, LaSierra, UC Santa Cruz)  That should be one Pool B bid.

26 schools divided by an access ratio of 1.8.66 = 3.002.  In 2008-09, the Access Ratio (the number of schools participating in Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences) was 1:9.30. 

26 Pool B schools divided by the 9.30 access ratio = 2.795

That looks like 2 Pool B bids next season.

[oldchap]

26 Pool B schools divided by the 9.30 access ratio = 2.795

That looks like 2 Pool B bids next season.

You lose a whole Pool B bid due to a .205 miss on the ratio?! Is this the way it's done, because it doesn't look fair to me?  Wouldn't they round up in this case, because the ratio has just increase from 9.30 to 13, effectively taking away a 40% lesser chance to Pool B teams than the rest of the field.

[Pat Coleman]

That's the way it's done.

It's plenty fair -- if there is a third Pool B-eligible team that is good enough to make the field, they can also get a Pool C bid. If they're not good enough to get a Pool C bid then they don't belong in the tournament.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's the way it's done.

It's plenty fair -- if there is a third Pool B-eligible team that is good enough to make the field, they can also get a Pool C bid. If they're not good enough to get a Pool C bid then they don't belong in the tournament.

That's the key to the fairness; they give the Pool B bids first.  If a deserving team gets slighted, they can still compete for a Pool C slot with all the rest of the at-large teams.

[scotswin]

If the stated goal for pool b is to match the access ratios between pool a and pool b, then the NCAA is terrible at math.  Assuming Ralphs numbers are good, then the actual access ratio for pool b teams will be 26/2=13!  13 schools for each gauranteed spot, compared to 9.3 schools for every gauranteed spot in pool a.  Giving 3 pool b bids next year would make the pool be access ratio 26/3=8.67.  8.67 is much more comparable with 9.3 than 13!

And yes, of course a third pool b team could get a pool c.  Just like a conference non-champion can get a pool c.  Teams from conferences that qualify for pool c are getting bids beyond the 9.3 ratio.

Look, I understand that the power (rule makers) lies in the established conferences.  These people consider the pool b system generous already.  This is why they don't round up in the pool b calculation.  However, in many years the equality is just not there.  Maybe you should not round up if the calculation yields XX.5 because that could make the pool b access ratio significantly higher than pool a, and conference membership is encouraged in d3.  However, rounding down from a high fraction is silly.

Simple Solution: I propose rounding down for all cases where the fraction is .75 or below.  Anything above that gets rounded up.  This prevents giving too much pool b access while also preventing pool b's from being hosed.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Maybe if some of the Pool B schools would build a track record of competing well in the tournament, it might help the case.  Maryville built quite the reputation over the last decade, but that's really just one school.

D3 lets any conference champion get in, so the basic requirement is simply being in a conference.  It's incredibly generous that the independents get a shot; you'll never see anything like that at the D1 level.

[scotswin]

I don't want to do the research, but remember there are more sports than men's basketball.  I am sure there have been successful pool b's in those sports (also a Maryville example but the Scots soccer team made the sweet 16 a couple years ago).

In any case, you could say that several conferences have not made a "good case" by not competing well in the tournament, and therefore should not have the same access as a strong conference.  I am nt saying that, but that is essentially what you are saying if you use tournament performance as an argument to give one group less access than another.

Lastly, this is not d1.  D1 budgets allow isolated schols to travel to join a conference.  With a few exceptions like SCAC and UAA, D3 conferences are organized and driven by proximity.  Not every school is so fortunate.

[Ralph Turner]

If the stated goal for pool b is to match the access ratios between pool a and pool b, then the NCAA is terrible at math.  Assuming Ralphs numbers are good, then the actual access ratio for pool b teams will be 26/2=13!  13 schools for each gauranteed spot, compared to 9.3 schools for every gauranteed spot in pool a.  Giving 3 pool b bids next year would make the pool be access ratio 26/3=8.67.  8.67 is much more comparable with 9.3 than 13!

And yes, of course a third pool b team could get a pool c.  Just like a conference non-champion can get a pool c.  Teams from conferences that qualify for pool c are getting bids beyond the 9.3 ratio.

Look, I understand that the power (rule makers) lies in the established conferences.  These people consider the pool b system generous already.  This is why they don't round up in the pool b calculation.  However, in many years the equality is just not there.  Maybe you should not round up if the calculation yields XX.5 because that could make the pool b access ratio significantly higher than pool a, and conference membership is encouraged in d3.  However, rounding down from a high fraction is silly.

Simple Solution: I propose rounding down for all cases where the fraction is .75 or below.  Anything above that gets rounded up.  This prevents giving too much pool b access while also preventing pool b's from being hosed.

Actually the Maryville women got a Pool A bid by earning the conference AQ in a 7-team conference, which is the minimum number in a conference to be given a Pool A bid. 

That is a gift right there.

In fact, wasn't the original goal of the GSAC to become a Pool A conference?  Someone in that part of the country foresaw Fisk, Huntingdon, LaGrange, Maryville, Piedmont, Stillman and one more school becoming a Pool A men's conference.  It hasn't worked out that way, yet.

Maryville has cleaned up in Men's Basketball in Pool B.  I think that they are the favorites in 2010, along with Elms and then again in 2011 versus the field of "13".

[scotswin]

Ralph,
Your response is full of facts, but it really has nothing to do with the current debate.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,
Your response is full of facts, but it really has nothing to do with the current debate.

I know what you mean.  Facts can get into the way of good debates.

Baseball frequently sees Pool B teams earning Pool C bids.

To change the access ratio calculation,  have the Maryville AD petition the Championships Committee of the NCAA.   

The access ratio is used to determine the number of Pool B bids in all sports.

[Pat Coleman]

I have no problem with it since any truly worthy Pool B team can always compete for a Pool C bid. And if you weren't good enough to get in the field that way, you weren't good enough.

[AO]

I have no problem with it since any truly worthy Pool B team can always compete for a Pool C bid. And if you weren't good enough to get in the field that way, you weren't good enough.

If you have to be good enough for a pool C, many of the teams making it in pool a would not have made it.  it looks like the pool c teams have won like 80% of the games against pool A teams.  If you want to have fair access for the pool b, take the top 4 or 8 from pool b and have a pool b regional tournaments instead of the pool b teams playing in conference tournament games which don't result in bids.  Seemed to make plenty of sense in NAIA when Northwestern an independent qualifier a couple years back.