Pool C

[sumfun]

Amherst has a chance to do that if they beat Tufts this weekend as they have beaten everyone else this season in the region.  Do not play U of New England, but there are 10 schools in New England Region. 

[bearsfan]

Anyone have some insight on how Carthage might come out ahead of Wash U in the regional rankings. They are a great team, and I know they beat IWU at Carthage, but they also lost to IWU at IWU by 28. Wash U lost to IWU at IWU as well but only by 5. They are 2-1 against Central Region regionally ranked opponents while Wash U is 1-1, and they are 4-1 against all regionally ranked opponents while Wash U is 3-2. I am not sure how the Quality of Wins Index would shake out. What jumps out to me though is how they fared against common opponents. As mentioned, Wash U played IWU much closer at IWU than Carthage did, Wash U beat Elmhurst at Elmhurst while Carthage lost to Elmhurst at home, Wash U beat Chicago by a good margin while Carthage only won by 2, and their matchups verse North Park and Augustana appear to basically be washes.

Does anyone have any stats on the Quality of Wins portion of the rankings. I am guessing the higher ranking is mostly based on the 4-1 vs 3-2 rating verse regionally ranked opponents. Figure the two are extremely close and it could be shaken out either way without it really being a wrong ranking but just looking for some insight on what the biggest differentiating factor between the two is when they have a lot of similarities in their records and schedules.

[Ralph Turner]

Margin of victory is not a criterion.

The front page has updated Strength of Schedule data, both and M and W.

http://www.d3hoops.com/  

Please find it on the right siderail half way down.

[bearsfan]

Thanks Ralph. I know margin of victory isn't a criterion, just mentioning it for comparison. Hadn't noticed the strength of schedule on the right bar. It does bring up how close the teams are in the primary criteria though. Wash U has the better SOS and OOWP while Carthage has a better OWP. And when you bring in the record verse common regional opponents, Wash U comes in at 4-1 vs. Carthage at 5-2. So they are just two very closely matched teams, and I would think the order could be reversed and still be just as justifiable. Wash U has the lead in 2 of the 5 criteria while Carthage has a lead in 1 with 2 being washes but the differences are so slight that it's almost a toss up in my opinion. No doubt they are two quality teams. My guess is that Carthage gets the edge cause they have victories over both IWU and Hope.

[Ralph Turner]

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Pool A  = 43 bids
Pool B  =  1 bid
Pool C  =  20 bids

[GuyFormerlyPSBBG]

Margin of victory is not a criterion.

The front page has updated Strength of Schedule data, both and M and W.

http://www.d3hoops.com/  

Please find it on the right siderail half way down.

When can we expect to see that this year.  I think if we have Regional Rankings coming out this week, those ought to be up there too

As Dave McHugh pointed out last night we have a month until the end of the regular season

[BlueZoneBruin]

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Pool A  = 43 bids
Pool B  =  1 bid
Pool C  =  20 bids

Perhaps the NCAA should consider one of the following changes:

Pool A = 43 bids
Pool B = Chapman
Pool C = 20 bids

or, if you prefer:

Pool A = 43 bids
Pool Chapman = 1 bid
Pool C = 20 bids

[Wydown Blvd.]

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Pool A  = 43 bids
Pool B  =  1 bid
Pool C  =  20 bids

Perhaps the NCAA should consider one of the following changes:

Pool A = 43 bids
Pool B = Chapman
Pool C = 20 bids

or, if you prefer:

Pool A = 43 bids
Pool Chapman = 1 bid
Pool C = 20 bids

+1

[dahlby]

Oh, great!!!
Here we go again. This should be interesting. Too bad not many Chapman posters on this particular board.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

First Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/02/ncaas-mens-regional-rankings/
Yes - the link says "mens" but both regional rankings are posted there.

[deiscanton]

For your reference, I have reposted Ralph Turner's link to the DIII Women's Basketball Championship Handbook, which I will make note of later-- see page 9 of the handbook for the new addition of "once ranked, always ranked" immediately following the phrase "results vs regionally ranked opponents".

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Pool A  = 43 bids
Pool B  =  1 bid
Pool C  =  20 bids

Last night, Mr. Ypsi posted a question regarding Illinois Wesleyan vs DePauw on the women's side as to whether or not that game was a primary criteria game.   (Of course, he asked the question on the men's side of the Pool C forum, but since this is a women's question, the answer needs to be on the women's Pool C page as well.)

As you may know, Illinois Wesleyan and DePauw are in-region by virtue of the 200 mile rule.   Since this is an in-region game, this game counts on the primary criteria of both teams.  This week, Illinois Wesleyan is #1 in the Central while DePauw is not regionally ranked in the Great Lakes.  However, should DePauw be ranked by the Great Lakes Committee as a regionally ranked team this season, the Illinois Wesleyan win vs DePauw counts as a primary criteria result vs a regionally ranked opponent.


To summarize, if a game falls in-region by virtue of any of the four in-region criteria: (1)  Both teams in same defined evaluation region, (2) Both teams are within 200 miles of each other, (3) Both teams are in the same NCAA geographical/administrative region, or (4), both teams are in the same conference and are playing a conference game-- regardless of the location of the conference opponents, then that game will always count in the primary criteria of both teams.

The next question that came up was how one should compute the in-region results vs regionally ranked opponents from week to week.  As you know, the DIII women's basketball committee defines a regionally ranked opponent as one that is ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only, while the DIII men's basketball committee defines a regionally ranked opponent as one that is ranked at any time of the rankings/selection process.    In the past, this meant that the men's basketball committee used once ranked, always ranked to compute the results record vs regionally ranked opponets, while the women's basketball committee did not.    Every other team sport in DIII used the once ranked, always ranked principle to compute the results vs regionally ranked opponents, putting DIII women's basketball in a unique situation.

To illustrate this, there was the situation of the Williams women's basketball team's games vs RPI and Skidmore from last season.  Both of these games are in-region for Williams under the 200 mile rule.   Skidmore had been regionally ranked earlier in the season by the East committee, but lost in the Liberty League tournament and dropped out of the East regional rankings.  Therefore, Williams's game vs Skidmore no longer counted as a win vs a regionally ranked opponent.   However, Williams got a result vs a regionally ranked opponent back the same week when RPI got into the final East region rankings by virtue of winning the Liberty League AQ.  This may have been the difference between the NESCAC getting either 4 or 5 teams into last year's NCAA DIII tournament.

This year, the DIII women's basketball committee attempted to correct this problem of results getting dropped out as a result of a regionally ranked opponent falling out of the regional rankings, although the NCAA has not released data yet to indicate whether or not this is the correct solution.  While the definition of a regionally ranked opponent has not changed this year in respect to DIII women's hoop, the phrase "once ranked, always ranked" has been put in as a phrase immediately below "results vs regionally ranked teams" in the primary criteria section on page 9.  This indicates to me that DIII women's basketball is intending to use the once ranked, always ranked principle this season-- but they could not, for some reason, alter the definition of regionally ranked opponent to indicate this.  This seems confusing to me-- I hope that my interpretation of this is correct.

Also, with regard to the DePauw women-- the DePauw women's basketball team has been a Great Lakes team for many years.  It is the DePauw men who are still classified as a South region team and who will change to Great Lakes once DePauw joins the NCAC next season.

On another note, the DIII women's basketball committee is not using a home/away/neutral multiplier to the SOS this season-- I believe that this is the best solution for now, since the DIII men's basketball committee's use of a home/away multiplier has come under some controversy.

[Pat Coleman]

For your reference, I have reposted Ralph Turner's link to the DIII Women's Basketball Championship Handbook, which I will make note of later-- see page 9 of the handbook for the new addition of "once ranked, always ranked" immediately following the phrase "results vs regionally ranked opponents".

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Page nine of this book also says:

"• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only."

This is not once ranked, always ranked. They need to issue one more revision.

[deiscanton]

For your reference, I have reposted Ralph Turner's link to the DIII Women's Basketball Championship Handbook, which I will make note of later-- see page 9 of the handbook for the new addition of "once ranked, always ranked" immediately following the phrase "results vs regionally ranked opponents".

2011 Women's Division III Basketball Handbook

Jan. 18, 2011 Revision is the most recent.

Page nine of this book also says:

"• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only."

This is not once ranked, always ranked. They need to issue one more revision.

I also would have preferred changing the definition of "regionally ranked opponent" to make it clear that regionally ranked opponents mean ranked opponents at any time of the rankings/selection process if the women's basketball committee intended to use "once ranked, always ranked" to compute "results vs regionally ranked opponents".   Simply adding the phrase "once ranked, always ranked" into the primary criteria without changing the definition of "regionally ranked opponent" only adds to the confusion-- do you now have to present both results against regionally ranked opponents as well as results against "once ranked, always ranked" opponents  or is "once ranked, always ranked" sufficient to use as "results vs regionally ranked opponents?"

The other team sports championship handbooks make it clear that the other DIII team championship committees have no problem with "once ranked, always ranked"-- why does DIII women's basketball need to be unique in that problem?

[Pat Coleman]

To clarify, line two, the one I cited, is in error. I pointed it out and there will be a revision.

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.