Top 25 discussion

[gordonmann]

Every week I distribute a packet of information to voters that includes results of teams receiving votes and a few more teams that I think merit consideration. Cortland was on the list for a couple weeks and no one voted for them.

I planned to add them to my ballot if they beat SUNY New Paltz. I was waiting for that result since I know that conference tends to be top heavy. Then the Red Dragons lost to SUNY New Paltz. That's not a bad loss, but voters generally aren't going to add a team to their ballot on a week when they lost a game to someone unranked.

It's not the same as a Top 25 vote but I included Cortland's results in the Saturday recaps with links to the game stories. Same thing for Webster (provided they aren't playing someone like Principia) and a couple other teams that aren't in the poll but deserve recognition. Saturdays tend to be the best day to do that since most teams play that day.

[Roundball999]

FWIW, Massey has Cortland at 68 and SJF at 59.  SoS is a problem for both of them in Massey, Cortland at #169 and SJF at #261.  New Paltz loss hurt, they are #92; I also like Cortland over SJF

[scottiedawg]

Lol, after a quick deeper dive I take it back (I spoke too hastily). Cortland's three losses do not stack up well:
Hartwick
SUNY New Paltz
Misericordia

They share a Hartwick loss with St. John Fisher, but SJF's lone other loss is @Ithaca, which is not a bad loss.

SJF's underlying stats look a lot better too.

I also think SJF's wins are a little bit better than Cortland's
vs. Rochester
@ Hamilton
vs. Hartwick
n vs. Widener
@ Nazareth

look a bit better than:
vs. Ithaca
vs. SUNY New Paltz
vs. Hamilton

In my ranking of now 62 teams (just added Cortland), Cortland comes out #58. SJF is #20.

[IC798891]

Ithaca being unranked while Fisher is...just doesn't make sense to me.

Per the last regional rankings — unless I'm missing someone — Ithaca is 5-3 against RR teams, while Fisher is 2-2. That includes, of course, Ithaca running Fisher out of the gym in the H2H meeting. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Ithaca being unranked while Fisher is...just doesn't make sense to me.

Per the last regional rankings — unless I'm missing someone — Ithaca is 5-3 against RR teams, while Fisher is 2-2. That includes, of course, Ithaca running Fisher out of the gym in the H2H meeting.

Well first ... regional ranking stuff is NCAA-based specific data and information that decides on information ... and even the vRRO above you mention wasn't used in last week's rankings (meaning it had no impact on who was ranked or not ranked). Top 25 voters look at a lot more information - they aren't restricted at what they can or cannot look at to come up with a judgement. Furthermore, more teams than ever are being ranked with the current system, so the information isn't just "5-3 vRRO" and "2-2 vRRO" ... it is who they played and where they are ranked ... and we won't have that kind of breakdown until Wednesday afternoon.

So maybe Ithaca should be in the Top 25 and Fisher shouldn't (or they both should), but the argument can't necessarily be made with vRRO information.

[IC798891]

Ithaca being unranked while Fisher is...just doesn't make sense to me.

Per the last regional rankings — unless I'm missing someone — Ithaca is 5-3 against RR teams, while Fisher is 2-2. That includes, of course, Ithaca running Fisher out of the gym in the H2H meeting.

Well first ... regional ranking stuff is NCAA-based specific data and information that decides on information ... and even the vRRO above you mention wasn't used in last week's rankings (meaning it had no impact on who was ranked or not ranked). Top 25 voters look at a lot more information - they aren't restricted at what they can or cannot look at to come up with a judgement. Furthermore, more teams than ever are being ranked with the current system, so the information isn't just "5-3 vRRO" and "2-2 vRRO" ... it is who they played and where they are ranked ... and we won't have that kind of breakdown until Wednesday afternoon.

So maybe Ithaca should be in the Top 25 and Fisher shouldn't (or they both should), but the argument can't necessarily be made with vRRO information.

I know that's not the full breakdown. Even if we're not "using RRO" per se, these teams aren't coming out of nowhere. Even if the national voters might have different exact opinions on them or they were maybe on the cusp of those rankings when the ballots were submitted, I feel like it's fair to call those teams quality opponents when trying to get a general sense of body of work.

Doesn't really matter either way. As I said, it didn't really make sense to me, but the Bombers will likely make the field either way

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

But I think there is a better way to make the argument than sticking to NCAA metrics that are a very small portion of the overall resumes.

[Augie2020]

Just to bring up another conversation that Mr Maus brought up a couple days ago.I don't see the Nescac getting 3 or 4 teams in(women)!I think only way you get 3 teams from nescac is Trinity wins the Nescac-Whats your take Sdawg& GM or anyone else?

[Augie2020]

Also does the Landmark get 3 teams in this year in women?(If upsets occur)

[scottiedawg]

I'm not gonna be a good source of NCAA selection predictions. If I am it'll be straight from Matt Snyder's data.

There are some very interesting conclusions to draw from the first men's ordered regional rankings though. NCAA might be weighting the criteria a bit differently than in years past. (And I'm a BIG fan of the inferred changes).

[nescac nostradamus]

Just to bring up another conversation that Mr Maus brought up a couple days ago.I don't see the Nescac getting 3 or 4 teams in(women)!I think only way you get 3 teams from nescac is Trinity wins the Nescac-Whats your take Sdawg& GM or anyone else?

IMO, no chance NESCAC gets 4 teams in this year.  I think Trinity gets in if they make it to the NESCAC finals.

[VT-Alum-NOVA]

guessing this thursday hoopsville discussion will be VERY interesting on what NCAA is looking at to decide regional rankings.  seems on men's side, there is some BIG difference between top25/35 and regional rankings

[scottiedawg]

Yup, this is what Twitter user @d3bubble inferred from the men's ordered regional rankings, and what they're doing to update their prediction models:

*****
"Model adjustments coming tomorrow:
- Larger bonuses for wins vs RRO (scaled by quality)
- Reduced penalties for losses vs RRO
- Heavier progressive penalties for sub-.500 SOS
- Minor "fudge factors" to reflect NCAA ranking of a few teams (where I am way off)"
*****

I for one LOVE this: Heavier progressive penalties for sub-.500 SOS

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Unfortunately, though, there's no way to predict the women's results from the men's or vice versa.  They are really very different groups.

[scottiedawg]

Unfortunately, though, there's no way to predict the women's results from the men's or vice versa.  They are really very different groups.

{ Mind Blown }  If one committee is deciding to relatively value the criteria differently from year's past the two committees will still function as a silo? Seems bonkers.