Pool C

BlueZoneBruin · February 10, 2011, 01:57:00 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
Wow - UW-LaX came from unranked to #3 in the Central in a single week! Beating UWW was impressive, but I'm not sure how they jumped both WashU and Chicago so quickly - both have much better overall and in-region records.

This is kind of a Pool B post, but Chapman went from unranked to #2 in the West in a single week. Can a victory over 9-11 La Verne (Chapman's only game last week) really carry that much weight? Something is screwy is NCAA land.

deiscanton · February 10, 2011, 06:02:33 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
Wow - UW-LaX came from unranked to #3 in the Central in a single week! Beating UWW was impressive, but I'm not sure how they jumped both WashU and Chicago so quickly - both have much better overall and in-region records.

First, UW-La Crosse has an in-region head-to-head victory over Chicago: UW-LaCrosse def. Chicago, 62-56, on Nov. 28, 2010. It doesn't matter when in the season that victory took place, as long as that win took place, UW-LaX will probably get a higher spot in the regional rankings vs Chicago this year, assuming all other factors balance out-- as it looks like it has, according to what the NCAA released on Week 2's SOS data.

The NCAA did release their SOS data this week, so we can see the reasoning behind the rankings:

According to the NCAA's listings-- through the games of Sunday, Feb. 6, 2011

1.) UW-La Crosse has an in-region record of 16-5 (.762), a reg. strength of schedule rating of .564 (Avg. OWP of .565, avg OOWP of .561), and a 2-3 (.400) in-region record vs regionally ranked opponents. (Wins vs Chicago and UW-Whitewater, losses vs Coe (#1 West) (Coe in-region via 200 mile rule), UW-Whitewater, and UW-Stevens Point).

2.) Chicago has an in-region mark of 17-3 (.850), a regional strength of schedule rating of .529 (Avg. OWP of .512, avg. OOWP of .565), and a 2-1 in-region mark vs regionally ranked opponents (Wins vs Wash U and Rochester (#2 in East-- UAA), loss to Illinois Wesleyan)

3.) Wash U has an in-region record of 14-2 (.875), a regional strength of schedule rating of .523 (Avg. OWP of .513, avg OOWP of .542), and a 1-2 in-region record vs regionally ranked opponents (Win vs Rochester (#2 in East-- UAA), losses vs Chicago and Illinois Wesleyan)

I can see UW-La Crosse at #3 in Central based on this data.

Chicago's loss vs UW-La Crosse gets factored into next week's calculation of Chicago's in-region record vs regionally ranked opposition, as you only calculate the records once you know who is regionally ranked for the week. The in-region records vs regionally ranked opposition are correct this week, as you only use the teams listed in the Week 1 regional rankings to compile the data for the in-region records this week. Week 3's in-region records vs regionally ranked opposition use the teams listed from week 2's regional rankings-- in addition to the once ranked, always ranked teams that were listed in week 1's regional rankings, but not in week 2's regional rankings, and get released with next week's data.

Note that Chicago and Wash U only have 2 games remaining vs regionally ranked opposition-- Both Chicago and Wash U play at Rochester this weekend, and then Chicago is at Wash U on Feb. 26-- the last day of UAA competition.

UW-La Crosse may have 2 or 3 games remaining vs regionally ranked opposition left-- UW-LaX plays UW-Stevens Point before the WIAC tournament, and then it depends on who UW-LaX plays in the WIAC tournament.

ichouse · February 10, 2011, 06:57:46 AM

deis,

could you post the sos link?

deiscanton · February 10, 2011, 07:35:52 AM

Quote from: ichouse on February 10, 2011, 06:57:46 AM
deis,

could you post the sos link?

Ralph Turner · February 10, 2011, 09:19:37 AM

In the ASC, the highest weight SOS that I can find for a team with a winning percentage is Howard Payne at .519.

The ASC will play 20/21 games by the East/West division members.

You kill you weighted OWP by playing so many conference games.

Large conferences, and isolated conferences are still at a disadvantage.

Thanks, Pat Coleman and Deis, for the links, tho'? +1!

Pat Coleman's caveat about the files.

Quote
Here's what the same URLs look like with men's info in them. However, they are not up to date and they don't appear to have the correct formula for calculating strength of schedule.

deiscanton · February 10, 2011, 09:41:56 AM

I took a look at the men's files this morning. They probably were updated for the correct results after Pat Coleman made his comment last night, but I trust that KnightSlappy and others will go through the data and double-check the figures. I posted my comments on the men's SOS data this morning on the men's Pool C side, but I will await confirmation. Trust, but verify.

deiscanton · February 10, 2011, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on February 10, 2011, 01:57:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
Wow - UW-LaX came from unranked to #3 in the Central in a single week! Beating UWW was impressive, but I'm not sure how they jumped both WashU and Chicago so quickly - both have much better overall and in-region records.

This is kind of a Pool B post, but Chapman went from unranked to #2 in the West in a single week. Can a victory over 9-11 La Verne (Chapman's only game last week) really carry that much weight? Something is screwy is NCAA land.

The West Region is a very geographically isolated region. Once ranked/always ranked St. Benedict (Minnesota IAC), who was ranked at #4 in the West last week, has not played a single regionally ranked opponent.

Chapman, on the other hand, is 1-0 vs regionally ranked opposition this week-- (Head-to-head victory over Lewis & Clark in a holiday tournament). Chapman will improve to 2-0 vs regionally ranked opposition in next week's rankings due to the in-region victory over now regionally ranked UW-La Crosse (#3 in Central-- in-region due to the fact that both teams are in the same geographic/administrative region.)

It is very difficult for a team in the Minnesota IAC, Iowa IAC, Southern California IAC, or Northwest Conference to play out-of conference games vs each other due to the fact that in-region travel between those conferences would require a plane flight. Chapman can play SCIAC teams due to the fact that they are in the same area, but in order for Chapman to play the other West Region conference teams on the road, Chapman would have to fly out to these locations.

jaybird44 · February 10, 2011, 08:04:14 PM

What concerns me about this regional-ranking process is the inordinate amount of effect that conference games may have on the rankings.

I find it hard to fathom that a team like Washington U. could actually drop a place in the regional standings, despite having a current healthy winning streak. It shouldn't be penalized for playing a struggling team twice in a season, nor should it be rewarded profusely for playing a tough conference foe. You don't have much choice in this matter...you can't tell your conference that you aren't going to play conference rival Team A, because by doing so your regional ranking will suffer.

Now, if you go out of your way to schedule tough non-conference foes, then you should get beaucoup credit for that; and be penalized for playing softies just to pad an overall and in-region record.

Just my 2 cents, which may be trading at only 1.3 cents in the market of public opnion.

Ralph Turner · February 10, 2011, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: jaybird44 on February 10, 2011, 08:04:14 PM
What concerns me about this regional-ranking process is the inordinate amount of effect that conference games may have on the rankings.

I find it hard to fathom that a team like Washington U. could actually drop a place in the regional standings, despite having a current healthy winning streak. It shouldn't be penalized for playing a struggling team twice in a season, nor should it be rewarded profusely for playing a tough conference foe. You don't have much choice in this matter...you can't tell your conference that you aren't going to play conference rival Team A, because by doing so your regional ranking will suffer.

Now, if you go out of your way to schedule tough non-conference foes, then you should get beaucoup credit for that; and be penalized for playing softies just to pad an overall and in-region record.

Just my 2 cents, which may be trading at only 1.3 cents in the market of public opnion.

Actually 2 cents on a neutral floor, 1.2 cents at home, 2.8 cents on the road.

David Collinge · February 10, 2011, 08:48:21 PM

The rankings, both regional (NCAA) and national (D3hoops.com), are not about reward and punishment, they are about evaluation. It's true that Wash U. is tied into playing each conference opponent twice, but since those are their opponents, that's what we have for evaluation of the strength of the team relative to other teams in the region or nation.

To use a clearer example, look at Denison. They remain unbeaten, now sitting at 22-0, but they have played a woeful schedule, due in large part to the fact that they play in a woeful conference. Are they being "punished" by being ranked 4th in the GL and 13th nationally despite being undefeated? No. Are they being "rewarded" for being unbeaten, despite playing no ranked opponents and few good ones? No. They're simply being evaluated on the data available, their results against the teams they have played, and compared to the data available for other regional teams like Calvin and DePauw and other national teams like Chicago and Rochester. Unfortunately for the evaluators, all four of these teams would likely have sailed through Denison's schedule about as successfully as the Big Red have, so their record of 22-0 tells us comparatively little. But that doesn't mean that DU is "punished" for having to play the likes (or dislikes) of Oberlin and Wooster twice, it just means that it's that much harder to compare their results to those of their counterparts with tougher schedules.

Mr. Ypsi · February 10, 2011, 08:57:11 PM

Agree with jaybird. It would be nice if they could find some fair way to reward specifically non-conference SoS. You have no way to control the strength of your conference; you DO have the choice of cupcakes or powerhouses in the non-con part of the schedule.

IWU annually schedules arguably the toughest non-con schedule in the country (last year they beat EVERY other team ranked in the Central (plus others?); this year they have played EVERY other team ranked in the Central (beating all but UWW) AND have defeated two teams ranked in other regions. Their SoS is, of course, quite good, but playing in a conference where the bottom half is mediocre at best, not as good as it really ought to be. (This is not, of course, a plea for the Titans currently - if they somehow never won another game until the national tourney, they would still be a likely Pool C team.

But for bubble teams, it would be good if they were rewarded for gutsy scheduling.)

deiscanton · February 10, 2011, 09:36:01 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2011, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: jaybird44 on February 10, 2011, 08:04:14 PM
What concerns me about this regional-ranking process is the inordinate amount of effect that conference games may have on the rankings.

I find it hard to fathom that a team like Washington U. could actually drop a place in the regional standings, despite having a current healthy winning streak. It shouldn't be penalized for playing a struggling team twice in a season, nor should it be rewarded profusely for playing a tough conference foe. You don't have much choice in this matter...you can't tell your conference that you aren't going to play conference rival Team A, because by doing so your regional ranking will suffer.

Now, if you go out of your way to schedule tough non-conference foes, then you should get beaucoup credit for that; and be penalized for playing softies just to pad an overall and in-region record.

Just my 2 cents, which may be trading at only 1.3 cents in the market of public opnion.
Actually 2 cents on a neutral floor, 1.2 cents at home, 2.8 cents on the road.

The women's committee doesn't use a home/away multiplier....

Ralph Turner · February 10, 2011, 09:51:15 PM

Quote from: deiscanton on February 10, 2011, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2011, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: jaybird44 on February 10, 2011, 08:04:14 PM
What concerns me about this regional-ranking process is the inordinate amount of effect that conference games may have on the rankings.

I find it hard to fathom that a team like Washington U. could actually drop a place in the regional standings, despite having a current healthy winning streak. It shouldn't be penalized for playing a struggling team twice in a season, nor should it be rewarded profusely for playing a tough conference foe. You don't have much choice in this matter...you can't tell your conference that you aren't going to play conference rival Team A, because by doing so your regional ranking will suffer.

Now, if you go out of your way to schedule tough non-conference foes, then you should get beaucoup credit for that; and be penalized for playing softies just to pad an overall and in-region record.

Just my 2 cents, which may be trading at only 1.3 cents in the market of public opnion.
Actually 2 cents on a neutral floor, 1.2 cents at home, 2.8 cents on the road.

The women's committee doesn't use a home/away multiplier....

Rimshot!

Thanks!

Ralph Turner · February 10, 2011, 09:53:18 PM

jaybird, the UAA gets to customize their in-region/out-of-conference schedules more to their favor than any other conference.

Long discussion for another time.

Mr. Ypsi · February 11, 2011, 12:08:51 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2011, 09:53:18 PM
jaybird, the UAA gets to customize their in-region/out-of-conference schedules more to their favor than any other conference.

Long discussion for another time.

To steal just a little bit of Ralph's thunder (I'm sure he has plenty more!), the UAA spreads across 5(?) regions. The classic 'game the system' strategy is to schedule top teams in weak conferences (they are eminently beatable, but will have good winning records). The NESCAC are masters at this (a weak region, with other teams within 200 miles or in the same administrative region), but no one can compare to the UAA's diversity of regions to plunder.

Ralph is a bit testy (understandably) because the ASC plays so many conference games (MIAC also comes to mind) that they have little opportunity to 'pillage'. (The SCIAC and NWC teams also come into this discussion.) I don't know if there IS any reasonable solution, but current standards DO favor certain conferences.