Top 25 talk

[me]

I have to say I thought both of your choices in the sort of overlooked/um...underlooked? segment were spot on. So I'm less inclined to give you stick (I watch too much soccer) than many.

13-2 vs. #37 schedule is pretty good, especially this year.

Olivet are 2 wins that are probably better than it looks. They've played a lot of out of division -- no idea which counted and which didn't, don't really care. Winning at Marietta is still noteworthy, they beat Ohio Northern, and they've only really played a couple of just not good teams.

This week will certainly give us a lot more information. Just to give an idea though, in the total Massey universe, D3 top 25 is about 500 on the schedule page. 50 (which right now is Williams) is around 650. And 100 (Nichols) is around 800. 150 is 950-1000.

So shorthand: top 1000 is top half of D3 or so. 800 is a top 100 win.

So JCU has only played about 5 games against teams below 150 D3 caliber and is 5-2 vs. top 100ish.

Compare to Whitman having 10 games below that 150 line (and some of those a lot below).

Wittenberg is closer but still has more bad games and fewer top 100ish games. Looking only at schedules for the top few teams.

So maybe this explains in the context of the rankings how they got there.

OAC also right now is rated #1 in SOS (though projected to fall to 2), so not losing many schedule points there.

[KnightSlappy]

Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

Of course you have to trust the SOS number.  Massey has JCU at 37 right now - they've played only four marginally decent opponents - I'd argue it's really only been two - I just included the other two because JCU lost to them.  If that's the 37th best schedule, I'm very confused.

Maybe it's a strange year and that's properly rated, but it feels odd not to be able to trust the 37th best schedule at this point.

I think you're conflating opponent record and opponent quality.

[smedindy]

Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

Of course you have to trust the SOS number.  Massey has JCU at 37 right now - they've played only four marginally decent opponents - I'd argue it's really only been two - I just included the other two because JCU lost to them.  If that's the 37th best schedule, I'm very confused.

Maybe it's a strange year and that's properly rated, but it feels odd not to be able to trust the 37th best schedule at this point.

Lots of fair-to-middlin' teams on their schedule (I think that's the OAC motto - "Most of us are fair-to-middlin') I think that outweighs the "really tough or really stinky" schedules.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

To bring up the SOS isn't exactly a fair use of the tactic. First off, the national committee MUST use the SOS the NCAA provides as part of the primary criteria (and new this year, non-conference SOS as part of the secondary criteria). However, that number at this point in the season is still all over the place. Numbers well north and south of .500 will be brought back to the middle for a vast majority of teams as they start to finish off the first half of their conference schedules and start the second half of usually double-round-robins. So, the SOS numbers aren't really a good indication of truly what a team's SOS is in the eyes of the NCAA. That is one of the biggest reasons the committees don't like coming out with a regional ranking set one week earlier. The numbers change too much. The SOS starts to settle down a bit in February.

Also keep in mind, the national committee doesn't look at Massey, Bennett, or our Top 25. It isn't part of their criteria.

As for Top 25 voters, they can use whatever they want. Now you are advocating for the SOS numbers when earlier it was Massey and Bennett. Voters can use what they want, including eye test, injuries, illnesses, etc. to make a determination. Nothing says everything has to be based on data only. D1 football has proven how messy that has gotten and has proven they can't even find a reasonable way to solve it, either.

[KnightSlappy]

While we're talking about schedule strength indicators, I've added a new one to my efficiency ratings page.

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

SOS Win50 is the median of each team's opponent's efficiency rating. This is a simplified version of what Sagarin (and now KenPom) does for the D1 ratings systems. It's basically the Efficiency Margin each team would need to go .500 against their to-date schedule.

My previous SOS (which is also still on there as SOS OppEM) is a simple average of each opponent's efficiency rating. Straight averaging is more susceptible to swings caused by one or three particularly strong (or poor) opponents, though I find both methods to be somewhat useful.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

Of course you have to trust the SOS number.  Massey has JCU at 37 right now - they've played only four marginally decent opponents - I'd argue it's really only been two - I just included the other two because JCU lost to them.  If that's the 37th best schedule, I'm very confused.

Maybe it's a strange year and that's properly rated, but it feels odd not to be able to trust the 37th best schedule at this point.

I think you're conflating opponent record and opponent quality.

I was just looking at Marietta and ONU being good games (both wins) and trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that Mt Union and Hope were marginally good (because those were the losses).  In reality, there are only two games on there that really tell us much.

LaRoche could maybe be thrown in with Hope and Mount, but I just don't see anyone else on there that's overly impressive.  I'm willing to grant that perhaps they have actually played the 37th best schedule so far - I just think if that's true, there's probably not a whole lot we can tell by the 37th best schedule.

[me]

I think saying they've only won 2 games that matter underrates the chance of losing to a team in the top 100, especially away from home.

River Falls is only 48% to win at LaCrosse, for example, even though UWRF is #12 and UW-Lax is #34.

Mount Union at 62 is only 75% to win at Muskingum who is 182.

John Carroll has only played 5 home games out of 15 games.

There's a big difference between playing a Heidelberg, who has played well against some really good teams but just not quite well enough to win (most of the time), and playing bottom half of the country fodder.

[gordonmann]

Sorry if I missed this, but which teams specifically do you think are too highly ranked and which ones are too low?

[me]

Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

To bring up the SOS isn't exactly a fair use of the tactic. First off, the national committee MUST use the SOS the NCAA provides as part of the primary criteria (and new this year, non-conference SOS as part of the secondary criteria). However, that number at this point in the season is still all over the place. Numbers well north and south of .500 will be brought back to the middle for a vast majority of teams as they start to finish off the first half of their conference schedules and start the second half of usually double-round-robins. So, the SOS numbers aren't really a good indication of truly what a team's SOS is in the eyes of the NCAA. That is one of the biggest reasons the committees don't like coming out with a regional ranking set one week earlier. The numbers change too much. The SOS starts to settle down a bit in February.

Also keep in mind, the national committee doesn't look at Massey, Bennett, or our Top 25. It isn't part of their criteria.

As for Top 25 voters, they can use whatever they want. Now you are advocating for the SOS numbers when earlier it was Massey and Bennett. Voters can use what they want, including eye test, injuries, illnesses, etc. to make a determination. Nothing says everything has to be based on data only. D1 football has proven how messy that has gotten and has proven they can't even find a reasonable way to solve it, either.

Look, I know you hate me and want to get one over on me and that's whatever.

But you don't get your own set of facts.

The committee, clearly and unique to any precedent, weighed strength of schedule heavily. Massey has a strength of schedule component too, you know, and you don't know what influences opinion more generally even if "this is the official SOS". But regardless of all of that, everyone knows that Oshkosh was selected because they played a great schedule, and won enough games against it to convince.

I never said anything about "the official SOS". Maybe I need air quotes or something.

Pretty sure Massey had Alabama and Georgia as the top 2 teams before the championship game, btw.

[Gregory Sager]

Lots of fair-to-middlin' teams on their schedule (I think that's the OAC motto - "Most of us are fair-to-middlin')

I always thought that the OAC motto was: "Throw away everything you thought you knew about us ... it's conference tournament time!"

[Pat Coleman]

So Spence is back, then? I'm beginning to recognize the pattern. That's a non-expiring ban.

[Greek Tragedy]

So Spence is back, then? I'm beginning to recognize the pattern. That's a non-expiring ban.

TGHIJGSTO!?

[Flying Dutch Fan]

"So does Dave really hate me (you) or is it you, me"

Abbott and Costello after reading this board...     

[smedindy]

"So does Dave really hate me (you) or is it you, me"

Abbott and Costello after reading this board...     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3zUGmigO5A

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I don't hate anyone and I am not trying to get anything over anyone... just trying to make sure when we talk about certain things like SOS, we don't throw it around generally. On these board, usually SOS indicates what the NCAA produces and what the committees use to rank.