Top 25 talk

Ralph Turner · February 15, 2006, 11:12:33 PM

Off-season Research Project:

I propose that Pat select a Blue-Ribbon Committee to compile the post-season records of the various teams and conferences, Pool A, B or C, Men and Women, and post it on the boards by next fall!

John Gleich · February 15, 2006, 11:21:03 PM

I AM a math major, graduating in May... perhaps I can find a grant somewhere to "fund" my research so I'll get paid for it, and we'll get our results!

... not that compiling win/loss records is extremely tedious math (necessitating the talents of one who obtains a certain prowess in upper math... but...)

sac · February 15, 2006, 11:22:06 PM

Heck we can probably as DC to do it.

David Collinge · February 15, 2006, 11:29:49 PM

Quote from: sac on February 15, 2006, 11:22:06 PM
Heck we can probably as DC to do it.

I sure hope there's some questions about D3 men's hoops top 25 and national championship selection pool system on the California bar exam.

Pete is the coach of State U., a Division 3 school in the State of Columbia. His team has a conference record of 12-4, but one member of his conference, City College, is a provisional team. State U beat City College twice. State U. also compiled a 6-3 record against teams in its region. State U. lost to County Tech, which is neither in State U's conference or region, and is 179.8 miles from State U, according to Microsoft Streets and Trips 2004. State U. has been ranked in the D3hoops.com top 25 in 6 of the past 7 weeks, reaching a high ranking of #17 in week 7. They are currently ranked #22, and have a QoWI of 9.763. If State U. wins the remainder of its games, will it qualify for the tournament? If so, under which Pool? Will they get a home game in the first round? What will their year-end ranking be? Discuss.

Bring it on!

Ralph Turner · February 15, 2006, 11:34:06 PM

Quote from: PointSpecial on February 15, 2006, 11:21:03 PM
I AM a math major, graduating in May... perhaps I can find a grant somewhere to "fund" my research so I'll get paid for it, and we'll get our results!

... not that compiling win/loss records is extremely tedious math (necessitating the talents of one who obtains a certain prowess in upper math... but...)

Now understanding the QOWI, or better yet, developing an acceptible multi-region SOS would be an admirable post-graduate study proposal!

Pat Coleman · February 15, 2006, 11:35:05 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 14, 2006, 06:31:17 PM
Since the playoffs took their current form, with Pool B and C and 30-some automatic bids:

Conference W L Pct.
Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 24 6 .800
Ohio Athletic Conference 16 6 .727
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association 13 6 .684
New England Small College Athletic Conference 21 11 .656
Capital Athletic Conference 13 7 .650
College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin 15 9 .625
University Athletic Association 14 9 .609
New Jersey Athletic Conference 12 8 .600
New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference 11 8 .579
State University of New York Athletic Conference 9 7 .563
Great South Athletic Conference 7 6 .538
MAC Freedom League 7 6 .538
Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference 7 6 .538
Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 10 9 .526
Old Dominion Athletic Conference 12 11 .522
North Coast Athletic Conference 9 9 .500
Northwest Conference 8 8 .500
Little East Conference 7 7 .500
Centennial Conference 6 6 .500
MAC Commonwealth League 6 7 .462
Liberty League 5 6 .455
Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference 5 6 .455
American Southwest Conference 7 9 .438
Midwest Conference 5 7 .417
Pennsylvania Athletic Conference 5 7 .417
Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference 4 6 .400
Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 4 6 .400
Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 4 6 .400
Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference 3 5 .375
Skyline Conference 3 6 .333
USA South Athletic Conference 3 6 .333
Presidents' Athletic Conference 1 2 .333
Empire 8 2 6 .250
City University of New York Athletic Conference 1 6 .143
Great Northeast Athletic Conference 1 6 .143
Northern Illinois-Iowa Conference 1 7 .125
Independents 1 9 .100
North Eastern Athletic Conference 0 1 .000
North Atlantic Conference 0 5 .000
Commonwealth Coast Conference 0 6 .000
Lake Michigan Conference 0 6 .000
St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 0 6 .000

Mr. Ypsi · February 15, 2006, 11:45:08 PM

Pat,

Which year is the starting point for "Since the playoffs took their current form..."?

I'm guessing 1999-2000, from the tabulated results?

David Collinge · February 15, 2006, 11:56:30 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 15, 2006, 11:45:08 PM
Pat,

Which year is the starting point for "Since the playoffs took their current form..."?

I'm guessing 1999-2000, from the tabulated results?

Well, the SLIAC is 0-6 in the table, and we know that they've had exactly one team in the draw each season (via Pool A; no pool Cs). Thus it's a table of 6 years of results. Thus it begins with the 1999-00 season.

Mr. Ypsi · February 15, 2006, 11:58:34 PM

David, that was the way I was calculating it, but wanted confirmation in case I has overlooked something.

Pat Coleman · February 16, 2006, 12:00:19 AM

Yes, the pools system started in 1999-00.

Ralph Turner · February 16, 2006, 12:26:17 AM

Pat's compilation of conference results highlight the "Power Conferences" as well as any measure one could devise.

IMHO, the Power Conferences seem to be a winning percentage of .600 and above.

The weakest seem to be below .400.

The great middle is well documented. The real effect of this is to demonstrate that the only way to get a high winning percentage is to the Elite 8 or Final Four on a frequent basis. Otherwise, the cumulative "one-and-done" effect is seen at the bottom.

John Gleich · February 16, 2006, 12:51:54 AM

On that note Ralph... I wonder what the correlation between post season winning percentage and non-conference winning percentage would be...? A few of these have been compiled over the years, and actually, I think D3hoop's new schedule (with the non-conference tab) would make this relatively easy to figure out... well, as easy as compiling the non-con records of each of the 396 teams, but...

My guess would be that there's a relatively strong correlation between the winning percentages, but it isn't 1 to 1... Even in the strongest conferences (talking regular-season here) the top teams aren't always the top in the country, and likewise, even in conferences that are rather top-heavy, sometimes these upper-echelon teams are at the upper echelon of the nation, as well as their conference.

Gregory Sager · February 16, 2006, 04:42:07 AM

Quote from: TheFence on February 15, 2006, 08:21:13 AM
Probably the wrong board but I'd have to disagree with Mr Sager, and I would have the UAA the #2 conference this year. Both conferences ( WIAC and UAA)are elite in 2006 and therefore they beat each other up. The tie-breaker for me has to be non-conference performance and I think the UAA edges the WIAC out this season.

At the top of the conferences you may be right Whitewater and the top four from the CCIW may beat Carnegie Mellon this year. But you may be wrong, Carnegie Mellon did beat Princeton who now has 7 D1 wins. So just because you think the Top of the CCIW and WIAC are better than Top of the UAA doesn't make it fact. The fact is we'll never know unless the meet come march.

At the bottom of the conference the UAA definately has the edge in my book. Both Emory and Case are better than River Falls, Eau Claire, and Superior. Of course the same 'we'll never know argument' applies here as well. However records and quality wins seem to be a pretty good indicator here. Both Case and Emory have solid wins in the conference and out of it, which to me makes them a tougher bottom of the conference game to win.

The UAA may not be as good as the WIAC year in and year out but in 06 the UAA deserves some respect, Top 2 respect in my book.

Of course I say all of this proudly not having seen a WIAC game this season. (I have seen multiple CCIW and UAA games as well as NESCAC games.)

I trust my eyeballs, not the records of teams that don't have any common opponents. I've seen the CCIW's top four, and I've seen UWW, and I'm dead certain that they're better than CMU -- and that's no knock on the Tartans, who are a fine ballclub. I will concede, though, that the bottom UAA teams are better than what you usually see on the bottom of a D3 conference. I watched Brandeis take it to Chicago to capture what was then the first conference win of the year for the 'deis, and I was impressed by them.

Gregory Sager · February 16, 2006, 04:47:52 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 05:07:08 PM
They've only made the Final Four once. The MIAC is indeed 10-9 in the postseason since the pool system came into play, but take out Gustavus Adolphus' 5-1 sprint to Salem in 2003 and you're left with something far more mediocre.

Hamline made it to the Final Four in 1977. And St. Thomas got there in 1994. Both teams finished fourth.

Gregory Sager · February 16, 2006, 04:55:35 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 11:12:33 PM
Off-season Research Project:

I propose that Pat select a Blue-Ribbon Committee to compile the post-season records of the various teams and conferences, Pool A, B or C, Men and Women, and post it on the boards by next fall!

I actually have this all at home. I'll have to dig it out, though -- I only have it on hand once a year, during tournament time when I update it. Unlike Pat's printout, it covers individual schools as well as conferences, and it goes all the way back to the D3 tourney's genesis in 1975.

I can't vouch for its complete accuracy with regard to conferences, though, since I don't have the exact dates of formation and/or induction into the D3 ranks for each conference. Plus, there's a few schools whose conference status I'm unsure of back in the early days of D3.