Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

Yes thats true, but is Aurora quality?  Hope's played all those Chicagoland D3 schools in the past.  Been awhile since we played North Park for obvious competitive reasons.

Will NPU be on the Hope radar after this season, or will the Vikings need to cross some higher threshold first? If they are, I'm pretty sure that Paul Brenegan would love to get a look at the new DeVos Fieldhouse.

[pabegg]

Only games against your own region count.

As a practical matter, I'm wondering how this is used for the UAA. After all, the conference games are defined as regional. This means that the Northeast Region committee should be using the games by Brandeis against WashU, Chicago, New York, Carnegie Mellon, and Rochester, all of whom could be ranked in other regions.

Example:  If Brandeis (MA) had played a team ranked in the Atlantic or Mid-Atlantic region in non-conference play this season, and that regionally ranked team was located in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, or Washington, D.C.  (those areas being in NCAA Administrative Region 1, the same administrative region as Brandeis)-- that game would also count as "in-region" for Brandeis, and if that opponent is currently regionally ranked, then Brandeis would also count that as a win over a regionally ranked opponent.

Thanks for posting this, which is a great description of the regional situation (which I already knew).

My real question is how the Northeast committee would know that Washington University was going to be regionally ranked in the Midwest in order to count the Brandeis win as a win over a regionally ranked team.

[Gregory Sager]

How apt is the Loras comparison? The IIAC ranks 8 in Massey and the Midwest is 10. So neither conference is 'powerful'. They have two losses to top 25 teams (Aurora and LaCrosse) and no signature win.

Loras didn't lose to UW-LaCrosse, systemfan. The Duhawks beat UWL, 82-74, in Dubuque during the season's opening weekend. Since UWL is currently #22, there's your signature win for Loras right there.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Mississippi College beat Louisiana College 88-52 tonight, led 72-27 with about 12 minutes left in the game.

I guess they've bounced back.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The "record verses ranked opponents" won't factor in until after the first ranking comes out today.

[Ralph Turner]

Only games against your own region count.

As a practical matter, I'm wondering how this is used for the UAA. After all, the conference games are defined as regional. This means that the Northeast Region committee should be using the games by Brandeis against WashU, Chicago, New York, Carnegie Mellon, and Rochester, all of whom could be ranked in other regions.

Example:  If Brandeis (MA) had played a team ranked in the Atlantic or Mid-Atlantic region in non-conference play this season, and that regionally ranked team was located in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, or Washington, D.C.  (those areas being in NCAA Administrative Region 1, the same administrative region as Brandeis)-- that game would also count as "in-region" for Brandeis, and if that opponent is currently regionally ranked, then Brandeis would also count that as a win over a regionally ranked opponent.

Thanks for posting this, which is a great description of the regional situation (which I already knew).

My real question is how the Northeast committee would know that Washington University was going to be regionally ranked in the Midwest in order to count the Brandeis win as a win over a regionally ranked team.

I am counting on the adminstrative assistant responsible for accumulating the data to make sure that the committee members receive this information.

I am also counting on the committee members to receive information that is at least as timely and accurate as thru official channels as what Pat has compiled on his own.

As for ranked opponents, please remember that only the final ranking (which we will not see in its published form) will be used for seeding the tournament.

[David Collinge]

The "record verses ranked opponents" won't factor in until after the first ranking comes out today.

No, according to my understanding, that's incorrect.  The regional committees used to use a rule that a win over any team that has been (regionally) ranked in any of the weeks counted as a win over a regionally ranked team, but that rule has changed.  Now the Handbook reads as follows:

• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams
Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process only.

That explanatory sentence was added to indicate that only the current ranking counts in this category, necessitating that each committee have a way to collaborate with the other seven when doing their rankings.  This is not a problem during the selection meeting, since everyone is looking at the same information at that meeting.

As for ranked opponents, please remember that only the final ranking (which we will not see in its published form) will be used for seeding the tournament.

This is correct, but it also applies to each of the three weekly rankings, which will be published.

How much each of the committees will rely on this criterion in doing their rankings is an open question.  I would imagine that it becomes much more important in the selection meeting than in the four ranking meetings (three weekly rankings, then the fourth, private, ranking provided for the selection meeting.)

[systemfan86]

How apt is the Loras comparison? The IIAC ranks 8 in Massey and the Midwest is 10. So neither conference is 'powerful'. They have two losses to top 25 teams (Aurora and LaCrosse) and no signature win.

Loras didn't lose to UW-LaCrosse, systemfan. The Duhawks beat UWL, 82-74, in Dubuque during the season's opening weekend. Since UWL is currently #22, there's your signature win for Loras right there.

Thanks. I misread that.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Wait, so how are the eight committees going to tell each other which teams are ranked, if they're using the rankings to determine rankings?  That seems like a catch-22 to me.

I just assumed that it meant that the second ranking will use record versus teams ranked the first time and so on until the final.  I just don't see how it's feasable to share that information.


What if a win over the #10 team in NE gave the #8 team in the Mid-Atlantic it's spot over a team that #10 in NE beat, which would then drop #10 from the list and begin a vicious cycle of changes before anything is released.  That may not be likely, but it's how my mind works.  I just don't see how they can coordinate all of this.

[Titan Q]

No, according to my understanding, that's incorrect.  The regional committees used to use a rule that a win over any team that has been (regionally) ranked in any of the weeks counted as a win over a regionally ranked team, but that rule has changed.  Now the Handbook reads as follows:

• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams
Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process only.

That explanatory sentence was added to indicate that only the current ranking counts in this category, necessitating that each committee have a way to collaborate with the other seven when doing their rankings. 

My guess is that they use the "regionally ranked teams" from the previous week.  Hearing from committee members how tedious that conference call process can be for each region, somehow I cannot see the Midwest having to talk to the West and the Great Lakes, etc.

A week from today when each region goes back to work for ranking #2, the 2/7 teams are the "teams ranked at the time of the ranking."  The final poll (Selection day) would necessitate collaboration.

Again, just my guess.

[David Collinge]

And my guess, which I hinted at in the last paragraph of my post, is that they don't use this criterion much if at all.  I expect it is only rarely relevant, with few teams playing in-region games against rankable teams from another region, and with regional win % and QoWI establishing the great majority of the rankings and head-to-head results, results vs. common opponents, and results vs. rankable teams within the region clearing up any ambiguities.  I think the language of the rule itself is pretty clear, and even if that makes the rule practically unworkable. 

We may have this all wrong.  One of the secondary criteria is

• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.

It may be that a victory by NYU over Wash U. may fall under this secondary criterion rather than the promary criterion we are debating, even though it is an in-region game for both teams.  It certainly would make life easier for the committee if they only had to consult their own list of ranked and rankable teams.

But unless and until we hear from a committee member or his/her mouthpiece, we'll probably never know for sure.

[Titan Q]

And my guess, which I hinted at in the last paragraph of my post, is that they don't use this criterion much if at all.  I expect it is only rarely relevant, with few teams playing in-region games against rankable teams from another region, and with regional win % and QoWI establishing the great majority of the rankings and head-to-head results, results vs. common opponents, and results vs. rankable teams within the region clearing up any ambiguities.  I think the language of the rule itself is pretty clear, and even if that makes the rule practically unworkable. 

We may have this all wrong.  One of the secondary criteria is

• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.

It may be that a victory by NYU over Wash U. may fall under this secondary criterion rather than the promary criterion we are debating, even though it is an in-region game for both teams.  It certainly would make life easier for the committee if they only had to consult their own list of ranked and rankable teams.

But unless and until we hear from a committee member or his/her mouthpiece, we'll probably never know for sure.

Maybe I am not following, but the primary criterion we are talking about --

Wouldn't that be where the Midwest region would evaluate Augustana's games played vs the likes of Wash U, Carthage, and Elmhurst?  Or Elmhurst's games vs Augustana, Carthage, and UW-Oshkosh? (assuming all are ranked)?

And then that secondary criterion where the Great Lakes would look at Wooster's game vs UW-La Crosse (again, just assuming La Crosse was ranked), let's say?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I also think that the criteria is much more closely followed for selection than it is in the earlier rankings.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Anyone know what time we're supposed to expect these rankings?

[golden_dome]

I am counting on the adminstrative assistant responsible for accumulating the data to make sure that the committee members receive this information.

I am also counting on the committee members to receive information that is at least as timely and accurate as thru official channels as what Pat has compiled on his own.

As for ranked opponents, please remember that only the final ranking (which we will not see in its published form) will be used for seeding the tournament.

Ralph,
   The entire process is automated now so that committee members have up to date information. Schools are responsible for online score reporting which provides committee members with all of the info needed online. The record vs ranked opponents is from the previous week but I doubt that comes into play very often. I would guess an overwhelming majority of decisions are made on the regional record and QOWI.