Top 25 discussion

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

[ronk]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

Not in the primary criteria, only # of results.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

Not in the primary criteria, only # of results.

The criteria is not "number" of results; it's "results vs regionally ranked opponents."  The committee have some leeway to interpret that.  Typically a team that has two wins over a #1 or #2 will outweigh a team with 4 or 5 wins over #6 and #7 ranked teams.

[Pat Coleman]

Right -- it's not "raw total of results against regionally ranked opponents." It is as Ryan describes it.

[ronk]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

Not in the primary criteria, only # of results.

The criteria is not "number" of results; it's "results vs regionally ranked opponents."  The committee have some leeway to interpret that.  Typically a team that has two wins over a #1 or #2 will outweigh a team with 4 or 5 wins over #6 and #7 ranked teams.

Then it should be listed that way - that the results are also going to be qualified.
What's the relative importance of wins, losses, results in the vrro category; does 2 wins over #6-7 rank higher than a loss to #2, etc?

[Pat Coleman]

It says "results" -- which is the most basic you can get. I think you added some interpretation above and beyond that that the book doesn't specifcy.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

Not in the primary criteria, only # of results.

The criteria is not "number" of results; it's "results vs regionally ranked opponents."  The committee have some leeway to interpret that.  Typically a team that has two wins over a #1 or #2 will outweigh a team with 4 or 5 wins over #6 and #7 ranked teams.

Then it should be listed that way - that the results are also going to be qualified.
What's the relative importance of wins, losses, results in the vrro category; does 2 wins over #6-7 rank higher than a loss to #2, etc?

Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think it used to be "wins vs regionally ranked opponents" and they went to "results" specifically so they could evaluate those wins in comparison to each other.

[ronk]

The total number doesn't mean as much as how they did against them and where those opponents rank. Not saying it won't possible alter things, but it isn't just "well they played 6 and they played 2, decision made."

Not in the primary criteria, only # of results.

The criteria is not "number" of results; it's "results vs regionally ranked opponents."  The committee have some leeway to interpret that.  Typically a team that has two wins over a #1 or #2 will outweigh a team with 4 or 5 wins over #6 and #7 ranked teams.

Then it should be listed that way - that the results are also going to be qualified.
What's the relative importance of wins, losses, results in the vrro category; does 2 wins over #6-7 rank higher than a loss to #2, etc?

Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think it used to be "wins vs regionally ranked opponents" and they went to "results" specifically so they could evaluate those wins in comparison to each other.

That may be the case, but I think they'll have losses included in the vrro component next week, not just wins so that relative balance among wins, losses, and results will have to be addressed.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

ronk - may I suggest two things because I am shocked you are arguing this point right now:

- Listen to Hoopsville more often. We have been talking about how it is "results" and what it means for a number of years now. You may want to dismiss it, but we talk about these things often and we interview the committee chairs and talk about these topics often.

- Don't dismiss three individuals who have poured over these things for YEARS. Do you really think Pat, Ryan, and myself would be giving information that is inaccurate and somehow your interpretation is accurate ... compared to three guys who talk to committee chairs, committee members, RAC members, and liaisons all the time?

I am really surprised you are arguing or disagree that it is a raw total number versus "results." It has also been a rather popular topic on these boards for a number of years.

As Ryan described, the committee takes the leeway of "results" to best understand what those games were and how they rank. If someone racks up, say, six vRRO opponents who are all ranked near the bottom and another has four and they are all ranked near the top ... that will make a difference. How they did against them will matter. How they did against which ones will matter.

I don't EVER remember it saying "wins" against Regionally Ranked Opponents. I remember it always as "results," but I have a number of old handbooks in my files. I will see what I can find ... while I try and juggle the many other balls I have in the air.

[ronk]

 I'm not arguing that it's a raw # vs results; a game played is a result; you 3 are saying it's more than a result or a game played; that it matters whether it is a win, loss, and who it was against. I'm saying the criteria ought to list it that way then and what the priority is among wins, losses, and opponent rank(in a manner similar to 2 wins = .03 in the SOS). It isn't stated, for example, whether a loss to a #2 is better, equal, or worse than 2 wins over #6 or 7. 

[Rofrog]

Pat dont need deliver anything to me!I'm glad your voters showed how they vote.One said look at Scranton win by one point over Susquehanna guess what Depauws win over7-14 in OT wasnt impressive either but they moved up! Whitewaters win over Platteville tonight was not a good win either.Make sure you implement that next week!

[Rofrog]

Dave go back to 2008 season it says it right there!

[Rofrog]

Wins against regionally ranked teams and oowp and such and auch!

[Rofrog]

So Scrantons loss to Gf is a regional loss?Because I remember Scranton Playing Whitewater and beating them in vegas or beating Tufts in Puerto Rico never counting as a regional loss or win?When did this change and why or am I wrong!Just asking ?

[VT-Alum-NOVA]

question.  does NCAA look at regional ranking as a criteria to determine host university in round of 64/32?  I know they balance "within 500 miles" for "pods" as much as possible due to travel costs incurred by NCAA.