Top 25 talk

[D3ball1845]

Fair enough. I understand that the 48 point margin was likely an outlier and would not happen if the two teams met again. I just don't understand how they could be receiving votes at 10-3 without any quality wins besides Tufts and maybe uMass Dartmouth? I acknowledge the fact that I'm not aware of the SOS numbers either but I feel like the voters are giving them too much credit for their win over Babson. Again, they are certainly having a good year I just am puzzled how they are receiving Top 25 attention.

[AndOne]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

The problem is that Massey always gives the best SOS rankings to the teams from the WIAC and MIAC, regardless of the strength of those conferences.  By the end of the year, I think Massey's pretty good, but early on it's a big jumble of non-conference results and those teams tend to play and beat "better" teams more often.

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

By the way, Massey's system is designed to be more accurate with more data (as I imagine any numerical system would be).  Massey's numbers rely heavily (maybe too much) on SOS and one or two games against a D2 or NAIA1 squad can skew them more than is probably reflective of reality.

[KnightSlappy]

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

I started running true ratings numbers last season as well as the SOS data stuff. I'm mirroring the KenPom method using only D3 vs. D3 games.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

[Pat Coleman]

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?

Ryan and Matt cover this already -- but you can assume that if we link to it and not Massey, then we think there's some validity. Also, we know that Matt will make sure his ratings make Division III basketball sense, since that's where they focus.

2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?

No doubt. But when you get Bethel at 26, St. Olaf 35, St. Thomas 38, Carleton 40 ... or UW-Stevens Point 29, UW-La Crosse 31, UW-Eau Claire 44, that's a significant difference. Division III has more than 15 teams, so it's good to compare a little deeper than just the top 15.

3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

I don't think the East has gotten much credit from our voters at all. Empire 8 teams have been ranked 68 times in more than 200 polls (48 of them St. John Fisher), peaking at No. 3. Liberty League teams have been ranked 12 times, peaking at No. 16. NEAC teams have been ranked 12 times, peaking at No. 14. SUNYAC teams have been ranked the most -- 112 times, peaking at No. 4. The University of Rochester has been ranked 110 times by itself and has been No. 1. (Also the only East Region team to play in the Final Four in the time span covered by the poll.)

Northeastern teams have gotten credit. They've gotten to the Final Four (of course, their path is often easier) and have won four national titles -- three different programs, two different conferences. We all wish the NESCAC would play a few more conference games to help us and the regional and national committees compare them better, but haven't they performed on the final weekend enough to merit some credit?

Also, it's just good to remember that the Northeast has 76 teams, which makes it the largest region by a good amount. If all were equal, they'd get more teams ranked because there are more teams.

[AndOne]

Thank you.

[Pat Coleman]

Thank you.

There certainly have been instances where individual NE teams have been overrated -- however, I'd have a hard time quantifying whether it would be a statistical outlier. Certainly there have been numerous times individual teams from power conferences in other regions have been overrated as well.

[Smitty Oom]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

The problem is that Massey always gives the best SOS rankings to the teams from the WIAC and MIAC, regardless of the strength of those conferences.  By the end of the year, I think Massey's pretty good, but early on it's a big jumble of non-conference results and those teams tend to play and beat "better" teams more often.

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

By the way, Massey's system is designed to be more accurate with more data (as I imagine any numerical system would be).  Massey's numbers rely heavily (maybe too much) on SOS and one or two games against a D2 or NAIA1 squad can skew them more than is probably reflective of reality.

St. John's, according to hopefans great posts, was the only D3 team to beat a D2 team in St. Cloud state. I assume this helps the Johnnies with their ranking (which is number one) and then in turn bolsters all the Midwest teams.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Finally got my blog out... kind of like I finally got my ballot done yesterday: http://bit.ly/2ALd0Qj

[me]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

The problem is that Massey always gives the best SOS rankings to the teams from the WIAC and MIAC, regardless of the strength of those conferences.  By the end of the year, I think Massey's pretty good, but early on it's a big jumble of non-conference results and those teams tend to play and beat "better" teams more often.

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

By the way, Massey's system is designed to be more accurate with more data (as I imagine any numerical system would be).  Massey's numbers rely heavily (maybe too much) on SOS and one or two games against a D2 or NAIA1 squad can skew them more than is probably reflective of reality.

Eh it's not designed to be more accurate with more data, it just is. But it has more than enough data now to have significant validity.

No one has provided any backup for their slamming the WIAC and MIAC other than their out of hand opinion. Again, 6 of the last 8 national champions. Would it be more if they didn't have to climb over each other to get to Salem? Maybe. Probably. And yes that's only one but we know there's more than one good team up north. There have been several win national titles.

If I'm going to get accused of slamming the pollsters, I think it's fair to be critical of that completely unsupported biased statement from two people associated with this site.

Massey almost always has the WIAC #1 and hardly ever is that wrong. MIAC is usually somewhere in the top 6 or 8 or so and rarely is that wrong.

[me]

Just to put some facts to this:
Massey
2009: 1 WIAC, 2 CCIW, 3 NWC, 7 MIAC
2010: 1 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 3 CCIW
2011: 1 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 3 NESCAC, 4 CCIW
2012: 1 WIAC, 2 UAA, 3 CCIW, 4 NEWMAC, 16 MIAC
2013: 1 WIAC, 2 CCIW, 3 UAA, 10 MIAC
2014: 1 CCIW, 2 UAA, 3 WIAC, 4 NESCAC, 29 MIAC
2015: 1 CCIW, 2 WIAC, 3 UAA, 5 MIAC, 6 NESCAC
2016: 1 CCIW, 2 UAA, 3 MIAC, 4 WIAC, 5 NESCAC
2017: 1 WIAC, 2 NESCAC, 3 CCIW, 6 MIAC
2018: 1 WIAC, 2 CCIW, 3 OAC, 5 MIAC, 7 NESCAC

Does anyone dispute that the WIAC, CCIW and UAA are really outstanding leagues? Seems accurate to me.

[me]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn't it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

The problem is that Massey always gives the best SOS rankings to the teams from the WIAC and MIAC, regardless of the strength of those conferences.  By the end of the year, I think Massey's pretty good, but early on it's a big jumble of non-conference results and those teams tend to play and beat "better" teams more often.

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

By the way, Massey's system is designed to be more accurate with more data (as I imagine any numerical system would be).  Massey's numbers rely heavily (maybe too much) on SOS and one or two games against a D2 or NAIA1 squad can skew them more than is probably reflective of reality.

St. John's, according to hopefans great posts, was the only D3 team to beat a D2 team in St. Cloud state. I assume this helps the Johnnies with their ranking (which is number one) and then in turn bolsters all the Midwest teams.

And St. Cloud is legit. They're not a lower D2. They're 11-4, and Massey has them 26th in D2. The two teams they've lost to since St. John's are 17 and 25.

It's easily the most impressive win by a D3 team this year. No close second.

[deiscanton]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

1. If you discount Massey, is your feeling the same about the ratings compiled by Matt Snyder, or do you feel they carry more weight/validity?
2. As far as the discounting of the Massey ratings and your feeling that they tend to give more credit to Minnesota and Wisconsin teams than they deserve, doesn’t it seem a bit contradictory when you consider that the D3Hoops poll has 4 teams out of the Top 15 from WIS and MN? If there are 4 teams from those states in not just the Top 25, but the Top 15, how do you see Massey as giving too much credit to teams from those states?
3. Due to the preponderance of teams in the northeast and east, my impression is that there has historically been a fair amount of discussion among fans in the Great Lakes and Midwest/Central that centers on the fact many in those areas feel that northeastern and eastern teams often get more consideration/credit than might be deserved. As you would probably know more about this than others, do you have any sense that, either currently or moreso historically, such might be the case and, if so, to what degree?

The problem is that Massey always gives the best SOS rankings to the teams from the WIAC and MIAC, regardless of the strength of those conferences.  By the end of the year, I think Massey's pretty good, but early on it's a big jumble of non-conference results and those teams tend to play and beat "better" teams more often.

The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

By the way, Massey's system is designed to be more accurate with more data (as I imagine any numerical system would be).  Massey's numbers rely heavily (maybe too much) on SOS and one or two games against a D2 or NAIA1 squad can skew them more than is probably reflective of reality.

St. John's, according to hopefans great posts, was the only D3 team to beat a D2 team in St. Cloud state. I assume this helps the Johnnies with their ranking (which is number one) and then in turn bolsters all the Midwest teams.

And St. Cloud is legit. They're not a lower D2. They're 11-4, and Massey has them 26th in D2. The two teams they've lost to since St. John's are 17 and 25.

It's easily the most impressive win by a D3 team this year. No close second.

St. Cloud St is not receiving votes in the NABC Coaches or D2SIDA Top 25 polls this week, however.  .  D2 uses the regional model in competitions, and they mandate that a D2 team not play a national schedule-- it is required that a DII team play at least 18 of their 22 DII mandated regular season contests against teams in their defined evaluation region.  Therefore, a high Massey rating in DII may not translate to a top 25 national ranking in DII.  The only thing you can conclude is that St Cloud State is one of the better teams this season in DII's Central Region. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Issues I have with Massey and Bennett can be best explained this way:

Augustana's record on Massey's website has them with three losses. They are counting the game against Illinois on Augustana's resume. It was an exhibition game for Augustana. It is a quirk with lower divisions, but it happens (unlike Catholic who chose to play Maryland as a real contest). Yes, Illinois counts the game, by rule, as a real game, but Augustana didn't.

That game greatly impacts Augustana's resume with Massey and thus everyone they play. And they aren't the only one. The struggle with Massey to not count games is frustrating and in the Central part of the country a lot of these cross over games affect the system in my opinion. I know there are cross-over games, but I have not found any games against DII, DI, NAIA, etc. to have any impact on Division III... but Massey and Bennett is affected.

Sadly, DIII can't have their games isolated to just the division or games that actually count on a consistent basis and thus the rankings are affected.

I also went through both rankings this week with the 47 teams I was looking at for Top 25 reasons. I found some odd discrepencies across the board. I can write them up later, but I was shocked at how one team ranked high in both despite horrible SOS numbers (Bennett) while another with better numbers was ranked lower.

Another thing about Bennett, I don't like how the points for and points against seem to have a significant impact. The game is far too complicated to use points for and against as part of a barometer. John Carroll puts up a ton of points, while giving up a ton as well, does that mean they are better or worse than a team who doesn't need to score a lot because their defense is so stingy?

I too have found the WIAC and MIAC ranked highly by these systems, but the national championships isn't a good enough excuse to say it is right. Sure, the top teams have won. Great. No one is denying that. It is the number of teams so highly ranked in the MIAC, especially, that gets odd. I have stated the WIAC may be the best conference in the country this year with the most depth, so I am not surprised if they rank well. I have also said the MIAC is far more competitive than it has ever been. However, I don't feel more than three or four of the MIAC teams could compete well on a national level and yet the rankings make it seem like six or seven (off the cuff) could compete. That just doesn't add up to reality in Division III.

[smedindy]

A. Dave, the affect is overstated, and by the end of the year, it's one small data point in a big sea of connected data points. It'd rather have unbiased opinions. In fact, I think these can help a D3 team just as much as they hurt them. Linfield's close exhibition loss to CWU probably helped their ranking in the long run.

Also, Dave, can you substantiate 'greatly effects' for Augie's loss to Illinois, when in fact they're #5 in Massey and were on top of Massey before their loss to IWU? That's not 'greatly effects'.

B. The 'eye test' is something that these systems are trying to eliminate - shaking up what we think we know with data.

C. Early on, with any system, there's part of the last year baked in. Over time that disappears.

D. I do feel that the one year a middling MIAC team beat a MIAC team that beat the undefeated defending national champs got peoples panties in a bunch. But anomalous results effect every rating system, human based or computer based. Remember, it's just one data point out of several interlocking data points in a big data universe. Trust data.