Pool C

[pabegg]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

[Titan Q]

Men and Women have separate coimmittees.  The committee members are listed in each Handbook.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

Appendix E has the Regional Advisory Committee members.  The national committee members are on pages 8-9.

[sac]

Sorry I mistyped, Hope women are 20-0 and thats off the D3hoops.com site.


.....and I was reading the men's manual, assuming it was the same for the women.  My bad.

[sac]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.

[pabegg]

Richard Stockton beat Manhattanville tonight in a game that was just added to the schedule a couple of weeks ago. The Handbook says

"In addition, only games listed on the institution's originally submitted schedule will be considered for tournament selection purposes. The addition of games not listed on the institution's published schedule as an aid for selection shall not be considered."

So does that mean this game will not be considered in the selection process. Does anyone know?

[Titan Q]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

The problem is, nowhere in the Handbook does it explain a) the relationship between OWP and OOWP, and b) the weight OWP/OOWP is given relative to other primary criteria.  

I'd feel a lot better knowing that every region, and the national committee, is on the same page, but for some reason I think we're going to see different interpretations region to region.

They'd be better off explaining exactly how all of these numbers are supposed to be used in the Handbook and then making sure the rules are followed.  

Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.

[pabegg]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.

Actually, nothing's in the handbook in that regard. The selection criteria is "strength-of-schedule" which has subitems OWP and OOWP. There's nothing in there about how to combine the subitems to get strength-of-schedule, which is what leads me to guess that they're using the traditional combination.

[kiltedbryan]

Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?

[Titan Q]

Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?

I'll chime in and let Patrick answer when he can.

I've been examining the Pool C situation pretty closely lately and I have Heidelberg right on the bubble right now.  They really need to finish the regular season with two wins if they're going to lose in the OAC tournament.  While Heidelberg's in-region winning percentage is very good (16-4, .800), their OWP is very low (.497).  For comparison, Rochester's OWP is .637.

They need to win that Capital game.

[kiltedbryan]

That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).

[Titan Q]

That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).

I have Heidelburg in better shape than Albion -- I don't think Albion has a realistic shot at a Pool C.  OWP/OOWP of .504/.499 is the problem.

And regarding the Great Lakes, I think you're right -- Heidelburg has the best Pool C case in the region, but again, they on the bubble at best right now.

[sac]

That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).

I have Heidelburg in better shape than Albion -- I don't think Albion has a realistic shot at a Pool C.  OWP/OOWP of .504/.499 is the problem.
And regarding the Great Lakes, I think you're right -- Heidelburg has the best Pool C case in the region, but again, they on the bubble at best right now.

Thats not going to get better with Tri-State 7-9 in-region and Alma 2-13 in-region on the schedule this week, plus tournament games next week that may not provide much better numbers.

[LogShow]

Talking Pool C bids is interesting and one of my favorite things to talk about on the boards.  I only wish Puget Sound had a shot ...it would be much more exciting.

[LogShow]

Pabegg, you are great with all the Pool C stuff...a true number cruncher!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

[Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.

Working on it!

Richard Stockton beat Manhattanville tonight in a game that was just added to the schedule a couple of weeks ago. The Handbook says

"In addition, only games listed on the institution’s originally submitted schedule will be considered for tournament selection purposes. The addition of games not listed on the institution’s published schedule as an aid for selection shall not be considered."

So does that mean this game will not be considered in the selection process. Does anyone know?

From what I read in the handbook, schedules needed to be in my November 5, 2007. I am not sure if additions for any reason are allowed.

Finally, the criteria from the handbook:
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.