Pool C

[Gregory Sager]

As an aside.. can a travesty be exacerbated?  I'm not sure if technically that means what I'm trying to say, but it does sound pretty cool!

Not only can a travesty be exacerbated, it can also be augmented, intensified, accentuated, redoubled, magnified, and metastasized. However, since it is a travesty, we should all endeavor to ameliorate it.

(Incidentally, even though it was coined for a TV commercial for a fifth-rate beer, I'm disappointed that "traveshamockery" never caught on permanently as a successful neologism. I love that term!)

[magicman]

As an aside.. can a travesty be exacerbated?  I'm not sure if technically that means what I'm trying to say, but it does sound pretty cool!

Not only can a travesty be exacerbated, it can also be augmented, intensified, accentuated, redoubled, magnified, and metastasized. However, since it is a travesty, we should all endeavor to ameliorate it.

(Incidentally, even though it was coined for a TV commercial for a fifth-rate beer, I'm disappointed that "traveshamockery" never caught on permanently as a successful neologism. I love that term!)

And if we get another "bracket of death" like last year it could be all of the above!!

[AO]

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
W   001   0.941   0.602   0.564   0.589   0.6772   001   A   C      16-1    17-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.882   0.628   0.553   0.603   0.6730   002   C   001    15-2    15-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.857   0.576   0.542   0.564   0.6376   006   A   C      12-2    15-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.565   0.543   0.558   0.6349   007   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.750   0.591   0.557   0.580   0.6224   013   C   006    12-4    13-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.800   0.541   0.538   0.540   0.6051   029   C   014    12-3    12-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.875   0.494   0.520   0.503   0.5959   036   C   019     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.733   0.555   0.531   0.547   0.5935   040   C   022    11-4    11-4   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.647   0.570   0.545   0.561   0.5829   052   C   031    11-6    11-6   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   010   0.571   0.597   0.557   0.584   0.5806   055   C   033     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   011   0.933   0.437   0.515   0.463   0.5805   058   B   002    14-1    16-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.500   0.617   0.549   0.595   0.5709   072   C   040     6-6     9-8   WIAC     UW-Stout
   

The West is looking more and more to me like a 1 Pool C region (barring upsets of both Point and Whitewater, or St. Thomas, or Whitworth).  Even though La Crosse is #6 right now, they've lost 3 of their last 4 and their previous 2 wins were by 6 points or less.  Unless they suddenly get hot and sweep through the rest of the conference schedule, they're probably going to lose another game or two... and then they'd get another loss from the conference tournament.

Similarly, Gustavus has lost 2 of their last 4.  They're just one game back in their conference... so they might be able to take over the top spot, but if they lose too many more, they'll be even more on the bubble.

I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.

[sac]

A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

[Titan Q]

A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf
(top of page 8)

[KnightSlappy]

A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf
(top of page 8)

I see that the handbook's cover says it was updated yesterday, but sadly neither UMPI or Menlo are denoted as declaring for NAIA playoffs. I'm still confused about the both of them.

[John Gleich]

I'm still a bit perplexed as to why the MAC Commonwealth is getting so much love. 4 of the top 10 RPIs in the country seems wrong to me.

Well, this is an inexact metric, insomuch as there's a possibility that there's a closed subgroup composed of a certain number of teams that have only played themselves... and so there would be teams in that subgroup who would rank as the best teams... but could be very much inferior to other top teams. 

That's actually what we have in the regional set-up...  Teams compete against other teams from their region and unless there's lots of regional parity, the top teams look really good.

I think this will temper a little bit as more of these teams lose, but the top 5 teams in the MACC went 9-1, 9-1, 8-2, 8-2, and 7-2 in non-conference schedule.  They're showing that they are the cream of the Mid-Atlantic region.  But there are 28 more losses to be "handed out" to the MACC (plus one additional to make the teams Pool C "eligible" in the conference tournament.  A maximum of 18 of those losses can go to the bottom 3 teams... so 10 of them will be distributed amongst the top 5 teams, and all but 1 will get an additional loss besides.

The teams will start weeding themselves out...  One of the teams isn't even going to make the conference tournament (though I don't know what their specific rules are... there looked to be a play-in game last year in the MAC Freedom), and you've gotta think that, with a few more losses, these teams would be near the bottom of the regional rankings... meaning that, while it seems likely that there could be 3 teams, it's not a guarantee depending on lots of hypothetical situations I don't want to spend the effort to figure out.

I'm not sure if this is still accurate... but per the "Ranking D-III Conferences" thread, the MACC was 4th in the land, winning 71.0% of their games.

I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.

The WIAC is currently at 60-17 against all non-con opponents with three games to go (50-12 vs. D-III).  The MIAC is .654 overall (.689 against D-III).  The WIAC is the top conference and the MIAC is 5th, at least as of January 6th.  I don't know if that counts for regional games only (I think not), so the numbers and rankings are going to be off a bit.

The MIAC is canabalizing itself a bit at the top.  I don't know that there's a dominant team... though St. Thomas and Gustavus may be able to hold off the others and both make it in... but GAC (lost 2/4) needs to stop their recent trend in the same way La Crosse does (lost 3/4).    The WIAC is canabalizing itself on the bottom... and by bottom, I mean everyone but Point and Whitewater.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

What about in the Sweet 16?  Does the hosting priority continue there too?  Or does it switch...?

In 03-04, Point couldn't host the Sweet 16 because the women were hosting (not to mention Puget Sound had a better case... though the NCAA would have only had to fly 2 teams instead of 3), but in 04-05, Point did host (women weren't a factor that year). 

[magicman]

I'm still a bit perplexed as to why the MAC Commonwealth is getting so much love. 4 of the top 10 RPIs in the country seems wrong to me.

Well, this is an inexact metric, insomuch as there's a possibility that there's a closed subgroup composed of a certain number of teams that have only played themselves... and so there would be teams in that subgroup who would rank as the best teams... but could be very much inferior to other top teams.  

That's actually what we have in the regional set-up...  Teams compete against other teams from their region and unless there's lots of regional parity, the top teams look really good.

I think this will temper a little bit as more of these teams lose, but the top 5 teams in the MACC went 9-1, 9-1, 8-2, 8-2, and 7-2 in non-conference schedule.  They're showing that they are the cream of the Mid-Atlantic region.  But there are 28 more losses to be "handed out" to the MACC (plus one additional to make the teams Pool C "eligible" in the conference tournament.  A maximum of 18 of those losses can go to the bottom 3 teams... so 10 of them will be distributed amongst the top 5 teams, and all but 1 will get an additional loss besides.

The teams will start weeding themselves out...  One of the teams isn't even going to make the conference tournament (though I don't know what their specific rules are... there looked to be a play-in game last year in the MAC Freedom), and you've gotta think that, with a few more losses, these teams would be near the bottom of the regional rankings... meaning that, while it seems likely that there could be 3 teams, it's not a guarantee depending on lots of hypothetical situations I don't want to spend the effort to figure out.

I'm not sure if this is still accurate... but per the "Ranking D-III Conferences" thread, the MACC was 4th in the land, winning 71.0% of their games.

I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.

The WIAC is currently at 60-17 against all non-con opponents with three games to go (50-12 vs. D-III).  The MIAC is .654 overall (.689 against D-III).  The WIAC is the top conference and the MIAC is 5th, at least as of January 6th.  I don't know if that counts for regional games only (I think not), so the numbers and rankings are going to be off a bit.

The MIAC is canabalizing itself a bit at the top.  I don't know that there's a dominant team... though St. Thomas and Gustavus may be able to hold off the others and both make it in... but GAC (lost 2/4) needs to stop their recent trend in the same way La Crosse does (lost 3/4).    The WIAC is canabalizing itself on the bottom... and by bottom, I mean everyone but Point and Whitewater.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

What about in the Sweet 16?  Does the hosting priority continue there too?  Or does it switch...?

In 03-04, Point couldn't host the Sweet 16 because the women were hosting (not to mention Puget Sound had a better case... though the NCAA would have only had to fly 2 teams instead of 3), but in 04-05, Point did host (women weren't a factor that year).  

PointSpecial,
For the Sectionals it is just the reverse of the 1st 2 rounds. Even years Women host, odd years, Men host. Again this is at the top of page 8 in the handbook.

[John Gleich]

PointSpecial,
For the Sectionals it is just the reverse of the 1st 2 rounds. Even years Women host, odd years, Men host. Again this is at the top of page 8 in the handbook.

I completely looked past that second part.  Thanks!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For those curious... RPI seems to be only for Division I. There is no RPI from what I have been told and read in NCAA... there is a regional record and an SOS - that's about it.

[Hugenerd]

For those curious... RPI seems to be only for Division I. There is no RPI from what I have been told and read in NCAA... there is a regional record and an SOS - that's about it.

Since these are the primary criteria, I am curious how they weight the two.  Obviously with RPI, WP is weighted 0.25 while SOS is weighted 0.75, but I am curious if in d3 it is weighted more like 50/50 or if WP is even given more consideration.  It may be interesting, when the first rankings come out, to compare the rankings using the traditional RPI format to a 50/50 WP/SOS format.  Maybe that would shed some light on how they weight the two?  Just a thought.

[Titan Q]

Final numbers from Selection Sunday 2009, courtesy of the late Patrick Abegg, with the selected Pool C teams in red...


Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   02    0.6259 0.5300 0.5270 Middlebury                004  A in        22-2 24-3
NE  13   02   03    0.6110 0.5167 0.5257 Mass-Dartmouth            010  A in        23-3 25-3
NE  17   03   01    0.6257 0.5643 0.5411 Worcester Polytech        013  C 4         20-4 20-5
NE  18   04   05    0.5878 0.4537 0.4823 Elms                      014  B 1         25-1 26-1
NE  13   05   04    0.6096 0.5467 0.5234 Rhode Island College      021  C 9         23-5 23-5
NE  14   06   07    0.6052 0.5297 0.5354 Bridgewater State         022  A in        19-4 20-6
NE  16   07   08    0.6013 0.5507 0.5438 Amherst                   031  C 15        19-6 21-6
NE  14   08   06    0.6081 0.5690 0.5249 Salem State               034  C 17        20-6 21-6
NE  11   09   09    0.5719 0.4717 0.4923 University of New England 037  A in        23-4 24-4
NE  17   10   11    0.5773 0.5038 0.5416 MIT                       042  A in        19-6 20-8
NE  90   11   12    0.5958 0.5841 0.5349 Brandeis                   050  C 23        17-8 17-8
NE  12   12   nr    0.5697 0.5131 0.5025 St. Joseph's (Maine)      051  A in        21-7 21-7
NE  16   13   10    0.5936 0.5951 0.5305 Bowdoin                   059  C 29        17-9 17-9

EA  21   01   01    0.6305 0.5339 0.5374 Ithaca                      003  C 1         22-2 24-2
EA  24   02   02    0.5953 0.5129 0.5135 Hamilton                  020  C 8         16-3 18-7
EA  24   03   03    0.6035 0.5755 0.5128 St. Lawrence               038  C 18        18-6 20-6
EA  21   04   04    0.5761 0.5673 0.5159 Utica                     067  C 35        17-9 17-9
EA  21   05   07    0.5852 0.5770 0.5346 Rochester Tech            070  A in        15-8 19-8
EA  61   06   08    0.5488 0.4892 0.4779 Medaille                  076  A in        17-6 21-6
EA  23   07   06    0.5506 0.4953 0.5035 Fredonia State            077              17-7 18-9
EA  90   08   05    0.5657 0.5452 0.5323 Rochester                 080              16-9 16-9

AT  32   01   01    0.6134 0.5152 0.5068 Richard Stockton          007  A in        22-2 25-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5939 0.5015 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale           015  C 5         24-3 24-3
AT  33   03   03    0.5754 0.4615 0.4940 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       027  A in        23-3 24-3
AT  31   04   05    0.5621 0.4622 0.4842 Baruch                     046  C 22        21-4 23-5
AT  32   05   06    0.5715 0.5201 0.5052 William Paterson          055  C 26        20-7 20-7
AT  32   06   04    0.5748 0.5363 0.4993 Montclair State           058  C 28        16-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5417 0.4323 0.4873 Brooklyn                  066  A in        22-5 23-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5141 0.4653 0.4859 Lehman                    126              16-9 18-9

MA  45   01   01    0.6031 0.5352 0.5345 Franklin and Marshall      019  C 7         21-5 22-5
MA  43   02   04    0.5825 0.5051 0.5122 DeSales                   028  A in        21-5 22-5
MA  41   03   02    0.5760 0.4755 0.4957 St. Mary's (Md.)          030  C 14        18-3 21-5
MA  42   04   03    0.5943 0.5303 0.5167 Widener                   033  A in        20-5 22-5
MA  44   05   06    0.5647 0.4648 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             044  A in        21-4 22-5
MA  45   06   05    0.5832 0.5527 0.5318 McDaniel                  053  C 25        16-7 18-8
MA  46   07   07    0.5644 0.4997 0.4889 Scranton                  054  B 2         20-6 21-6
MA  45   08   08    0.5905 0.5686 0.5327 Gettysburg                057  A in        18-8 18-8
MA  41   09   09    0.5589 0.4902 0.4933 Wesley                    060  A in        16-5 18-9
MA  44   10   10    0.5489 0.4892 0.4765 Cabrini                   073              20-7 20-7
MA  46   11   11    0.5386 0.4847 0.4894 Susquehanna               090  B 5         16-7 18-8

SO  51   01   03    0.6068 0.5343 0.5125 Texas-Dallas              017  A in        22-4 24-4
SO  54   02   04    0.6137 0.5594 0.5100 Centre                    018  A in        19-4 23-4
SO  53   03   01    0.5828 0.4817 0.5108 Randolph-Macon            024  C 11        18-3 20-6
SO  54   04   02    0.5846 0.4946 0.5158 Trinity (Texas)            029  C 13        20-4 23-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5757 0.4958 0.5112 Guilford                   043  C 21        20-5 21-5
SO  55   06   08    0.5751 0.5152 0.4975 Averett                   047  A in        17-5 20-8
SO  51   07   09    0.5706 0.5289 0.5047 Mississippi College       052  C 24        18-7 20-7
SO  51   08   07    0.5580 0.4873 0.5073 McMurry                   063  C 32        18-6 19-8
SO  54   09   06    0.5626 0.5131 0.5100 DePauw                    065  C 34        15-6 19-7
SO  51   10   11    0.5612 0.5198 0.5015 Mary Hardin-Baylor        071  C 38        19-8 19-8
SO  55   11   10    0.5571 0.5133 0.5016 Christopher Newport       075              14-6 18-9

GL  64   01   02    0.6174 0.5369 0.5209 John Carroll              009  A in        21-3 23-4
GL  64   02   01    0.6095 0.5381 0.5156 Capital                    016  C 6         22-4 24-4
GL  63   03   04    0.5792 0.4870 0.5031 Wooster                   035  A in        21-4 22-6
GL  62   04   03    0.5785 0.4960 0.4984 Calvin                    039  C 19        14-3 19-8
GL  62   05   06    0.5827 0.5271 0.4988 Hope                      040  A in        14-4 21-7
GL  90   06   05    0.5918 0.5449 0.5273 Carnegie Mellon            041  C 20        15-5 19-6
GL  64   07   08    0.5577 0.5223 0.5196 Ohio Northern             081              16-8 18-9
GL  63   08   07    0.5480 0.4992 0.4979 Ohio Wesleyan             084              16-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5353 0.4870 0.4854 Penn State-Behrend        096              15-7 17-9

MW  90   01   01    0.6335 0.5390 0.5396 Washington U.             002  A in        22-2 23-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6590 0.5982 0.5702 Wheaton (Ill.)            006  A in        20-3 24-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6154 0.5479 0.5085 Transylvania              011  A in        18-3 21-5
MW  71   04   04    0.6250 0.5991 0.5609 Elmhurst                   032  C 16        20-7 20-7
MW  74   05   09    0.5655 0.5005 0.5011 Lawrence                  049  A in        19-6 19-6
MW  71   06   06    0.5824 0.5409 0.5679 Augustana                 061  C 30        17-8 18-8
MW  71   07   05    0.6108 0.6241 0.5588 North Central             062  C 31        14-8 16-10
MW  74   08   07    0.5520 0.4835 0.5017 St. Norbert               072              17-6 18-6
MW  74   09   10    0.5544 0.5050 0.4931 Grinnell                  074              15-6 18-7
MW  74   10   08    0.5580 0.5283 0.5089 Carroll                   078              16-8 16-8
MW  71   11   nr    0.5628 0.5285 0.5578 Millikin                  086              14-8 16-9

WE  82   01   01    0.6357 0.5117 0.5193 St. Thomas                001  A in        26-0 27-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6183 0.4914 0.5360 Puget Sound                005  C 2         21-1 24-3
WE  86   03   03    0.6501 0.6007 0.5528 UW-Stevens Point          008  A in        22-4 23-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6221 0.5607 0.5594 UW-Whitewater              012  C 3         21-5 22-5
WE  86   05   06    0.6246 0.5820 0.5616 UW-Platteville            023  C 10        17-5 22-5
WE  81   06   05    0.5786 0.4657 0.5133 Buena Vista               025  C 12        20-3 23-3
WE  83   07   07    0.5927 0.5304 0.5184 Whitworth                 036  A in        19-5 22-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5662 0.4781 0.4827 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    045  A in        19-4 21-6
WE  81   09   10    0.5711 0.5096 0.5049 Cornell                   048  A in        19-6 21-6
WE  82   10   09    0.5691 0.5261 0.5041 Bethel                    056  C 27        18-7 20-7
WE  89   11   nr    0.5132 0.3529 0.4972 Chapman                   089  B 4         17-3 24-3


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A in: clinched Pool A bid
    blank: lower level Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

Final numbers from Selection Sunday 2009, courtesy of the late Patrick Abegg, with the selected Pool C teams in red...

So, unless I missed someone, 16 of the top 19 RPI Pool C teams got in, including 13 of the top 14. Guilford and Baruch were the two bigger outliers, but both had at least 20 regional wins. North Central, the #7 RPI, missed with a 14-8 regional record.

I didn't go back and look at head to head results or results against ranked teams, but it seems that generally the highest RPI teams did make it, with some exceptions for poor (or better) regional marks.

I believe that Mr. Abegg used the traditional formula for RPI.

[sac]

weren't there only 18 Pool C's last year?


Hamilton got stiffed.

[Ralph Turner]

weren't there only 18 Pool C's last year?


Hamilton got stiffed.

Yes, 18 Pool C bids in 2009.