Top 25 talk

[David Collinge]

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?

Primary criterion (one of five):

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

Secondary criterion (one of seven):

• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.

Augustana vs. Wash U. clearly fits under the primary criterion; Wooster vs. UW-La Crosse would be under the secondary criterion, assuming LaX is ranked.  But take as an example NYU and Wash U.  They have played each other (twice, split).  They both very probably will be ranked in their respective regions (East, Midwest), regardless of the criteria under discussion.  As members of the UAA, their games are in-region games.

Question 1: Do their head to head results count as an "in-region region results vs. regionally ranked teams" (primary criterion) or "results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions" (secondary criterion)?
Obviously these games qualify under the secondary criterion.  Whether they qualify under the primary criterion turns on how you interpret the phrase "regionally ranked teams."  If that means "ranked in any region," then these games would count, but it would require close coordination between the East and Midwest regions (depending on the answer to Question 2, below.)  If it means "teams ranked in the region in question" (e.g., ranked Midwest Region teams when evaluating Wash U.), then Wash U./NYU does not qualify under the primary criterion.  The more I think about it, the presence of the secondary criterion and wording of both criteria suggest to me the latter.  Anyway, this makes more sense; if NYU played not only Wash U. but also Augustana, also ranked in the Midwest, shouldn't either both or neither count under the primary criterion?  Under my preferred interpretation, only NYU's games against other East Region ranked teams count under the primary criterion, whereas the "ranked-in-any-region" interpretation would count the NYU/Wash U. game (because it is an in-region game) but not the NYU/Augustana game.

Question 2: When considering whether a team is regionally ranked, do you look at the rankings being formulated or those from the previous week?
To me, it seems clear that it is the former.  That's the only way the explanatory sentence "[r]anked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process only" makes sense to me.  I believe that if it meant "ranked last week," it would say that.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to use this criterion in the first ranking, which is such a departure that I think it would have to be mentioned specifically in the rules ("Except in the first weekly ranking,....")  There's still a Catch-22 aspect to it, that whether a team is ranked depends on whether another team is ranked, which in turn may depend on whether the first team is ranked, but to me that's still a more palatable result than basing one team's ranking on whether another team was ranked a week ago.

If I am correct about Question 1, then little cross-regional coordination is required.  The committee would only have to consult its own rankings under formulation to resolve the primary criterion of results vs. regionally ranked teams, and only would need to consult other regional committees in the very unlikely case that they are undecided after evaluating the primary criteria, and have a team or teams with in-region games against extra-regional ranked teams.   

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They're up on the dose.

[Mr. Ypsi]

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?

Q,

I'm sure David will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he is suggesting that NYU over WashU (or vice versa the weekend before), while an in-region game may none-the-less count as a secondary rather than primary criterion in terms of wins over regionally ranked opponents (since they would be RANKED in different regions).

I don't find the quoted rules at all clear on this point, but agree that it is probably rarely relevant.

EDIT: I see David has already beaten me to the reply, but I'll leave my $.02 anyway.

[Pat Coleman]

Chris,

As Hoops Fan noted, they're on our site. Let's keep people here, where at least we know how to spell Centre's name.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Here's the good link, if you want it.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Hey Pat, do they give them to you early so you can format them?  If not, you're awfully quick.

[golden_dome]

Sorry Pat. Didn't see his post above.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

First rankings are out.
http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii

I'm confused.  Everything I've read would indicate that Hope should be 10-1 in region, yet the NCAA has them listed as 10-2.  Is Carthage now an in-region game for Hope?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There's a few they get wrong.  I was going to post and ask Pat if he ever informs them of their errors.

I see Babson is listed at 12-8, when it seems like they should be 11-8 in region.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Good catch, fdf - Hope-Carthage is not in-region by ANY of the criteria.  Hope should be 10-1.

[Pat Coleman]

I do inform them, in fact. And it goes both ways.

Last year we were still fixing their in-region games up until Selection Sunday. We had a couple games wrong, too ... but then again, we're not the ones selecting the teams.

[Titan Q]

I am pretty confident that the intent is for a game betwen NYU (East) and Wash U (Midwest) to be considered under the primary criterion, just as Elmhurst (Midwest) vs UW-Oshkosh (West) is.  The key being that those are "in-region" games.      

I believe the secondary criterion applies to, say, Amherst (Northeast) vs Occidental (West)...an "out-of-region" game.  An Amherst win over Oxy would not be looked at in the primary, but could be looked at under secondary if they wanted to factor in more information.

[Pat Coleman]

We do not get them early. We used to get them early but we were beating NCAASports.com every time so they stopped doing that. NCAASports.com is apparently contractually obliged to get them first.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There's a few they get wrong.  I was going to post and ask Pat if he ever informs them of their errors.

I see Babson is listed at 12-8, when it seems like they should be 11-8 in region.

You're right, Pat.  I took your list for granted on this one.  Babson is indeed less than 200 miles from Vassar.  That game should be in-region.

[pabegg]

I agree that Hope-Carthage should be out of region, Babson-Vassar in region.

WashU has an extra loss. Are they counting the D1 exhibition?

I'm also checking discrepancies in wins for Manhattanville, NYU, Lincoln, Kings, St. Thomas, and Whitworth.