Pool C

[Titan Q]

Hamilton got stiffed.

I was at this game...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

IWU 70
Hamilton 55


IWU was 5-9, 7th place, in the CCIW last year.  The Titans held several leads of 20 vs Hamilton I believe.  

Hamilton did not look like a tournament team to me.  

[KnightSlappy]

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


Hamilton got stiffed.

That was the 16 of the top 19, plus the two outliers.

If you predicted by straight RPI, you'd have gotten three wrong. Hamilton, North Central and Bowdoin would have been in, and Trinity TX, Guilford, and Baruch would have been out.

[Ralph Turner]

There were 18 Pool C bids in 2009.

[KnightSlappy]

There were 18 Pool C bids in 2009.

Affirmative.

[magicman]

Hamilton got stiffed.

I was at this game...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

IWU 70
Hamilton 55


IWU was 5-9, 7th place, in the CCIW last year.  The Titans held several leads of 20 vs Hamilton I believe.  

Hamilton did not look like a tournament team to me.  

sac,
Hamilton had a bad loss in the 1st round (semi-finals) of their conference tournament, to a 13-12 RPI team. If they win that game and lose in the conference finals to St. Lawrence I believe they would have gotten a Pool C. To make matters worse St. Lawrence, the likely Pool A winner, also got upset the next day by RPI and ended up with a Pool C that would have gone to Hamilton. There was no way 3 teams from the Liberty League were going to the Dance.

Titan Q,
In all fairness to Hamilton, they were missing, arguably, their best player for the IWU game last year. If they had gotten in they probably would have faced Richard Stockton in the 1st round anyway (that's who RPI played) and lost. St Lawrence went on to the sweet 16 and lost to Richard Stockton 71-68 and SLU was clearly the best team in the LL last year.

[fantastic50]

If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!

[Titan Q]

I think the most significant thing about Patrick Abegg's numbers last year (in terms of predicting Pool C bids), is that he did a very good job identifying the potential order of the Pool C candidates by region.  Everyone familiar with the selection process (each region having a team "at the table", etc) knows just how important that factor is.

I only see three teams he missed:

1) Hamilton in front of St. Lawrence in the East, and
2) Randolph-Macon in front of both Trinity and Guilford in the South.
3) Calvin ahead of Carnegie Mellon in the Great Lakes


It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

[KnightSlappy]

It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.

[Pat Coleman]

Remembering Calvin and Hamilton specifically, I think it's worth noting that both would have struggled in the secondary criteria.

[Ralph Turner]

It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.

Hmmm...

"H*p*fully"

Knightslappy, I have a question.

My Jewish friends refer to the Almighty in print by spelling that word, "G*d".

Is that same principle being used here?  

Just curious  

[KnightSlappy]

It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.

Hmmm...

"H*p*fully"

Knightslappy, I have a question.

My Jewish friends refer to the Almighty in print by spelling that word, "G*d".

Is that same principle being used here? 

Just curious 

Pretty much the opposite. 

I just couldn't bring myself to type it during Rivalry week.

[David Collinge]

If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!

Best. I.S. Ever.

[fantastic50]

If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!

Best. I.S. Ever.

LOL!  Perhaps not quite enough there for a senior I.S., but I'm thinking this might make a nice sophomore research project.  Hopefully, a couple of students will be doing something similar (using neural networks) on D-I this summer, since there's a mountain of data readily available on D-I basketball.

[KnightSlappy]

Through scores reported through Thursday's (1/28/2010) games:

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.800   0.542   0.578   0.554   0.6155   017   C   008    12-3    12-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   02   0.929   0.497   0.525   0.507   0.6121   019   A   C      13-1    17-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.917   0.469   0.562   0.500   0.6041   024   C   011    11-1    13-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   04   0.941   0.465   0.533   0.488   0.6013   027   A   C      16-1    17-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   05   1.000   0.425   0.551   0.467   0.6003   028   C   014    16-0    18-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   06   0.722   0.581   0.513   0.558   0.5990   029   A   C      13-5    13-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   07   0.786   0.520   0.533   0.524   0.5897   042   A   C-2    11-3    12-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   08   0.722   0.558   0.513   0.543   0.5881   045   C   025    13-5    13-5   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   09   0.765   0.519   0.518   0.518   0.5801   057   C   033    13-4    14-4   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.846   0.463   0.541   0.489   0.5782   060   A          11-2    12-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   11   0.667   0.555   0.488   0.532   0.5659   073   A          10-5    11-6   GNAC     Emerson
NE   12   0.667   0.535   0.521   0.530   0.5643   078   C   044    12-6    12-6   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   13   0.733   0.502   0.519   0.508   0.5642   079   C   045    11-4    12-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   14   0.429   0.665   0.487   0.606   0.5614   082   C   048     6-8    8-10   NESCAC   Bates
                                       
E   001   0.833   0.541   0.547   0.543   0.6155   016   A   C      15-3    16-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   002   0.667   0.606   0.532   0.581   0.6026   025   C   012     8-4    12-4   UAA      Rochester
E   003   0.769   0.547   0.525   0.539   0.5968   031   A   C      10-3    12-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   004   0.733   0.566   0.520   0.551   0.5963   033   C   016    11-4    12-4   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.750   0.547   0.530   0.541   0.5932   038   C   020    12-4    13-4   E8       Stevens
E   006   0.714   0.559   0.527   0.548   0.5898   041   C   023    10-4    13-5   E8       Ithaca
E   007   0.667   0.569   0.547   0.562   0.5881   044   C   024    10-5    11-5   UAA      New York University
E   008   0.688   0.555   0.553   0.554   0.5877   047   C   027    11-5    12-6   E8       Nazareth
                                       
A   001   0.950   0.502   0.530   0.511   0.6208   014   A   C      19-1    19-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.824   0.557   0.509   0.541   0.6115   021   A   C      14-3    15-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.722   0.584   0.538   0.569   0.6072   022   C   010    13-5    14-5   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.824   0.500   0.549   0.516   0.5931   039   C   021    14-3    14-4   NJAC     Ramapo
A   005   0.706   0.548   0.505   0.534   0.5769   061   A          12-5    15-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.667   0.538   0.534   0.537   0.5693   069   C   037    10-5    14-5   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.706   0.526   0.484   0.512   0.5605   083   A          12-5    12-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   008   0.667   0.524   0.524   0.524   0.5597   085   C   050    10-5    11-6   NJAC     New Jersey
                                       
MA   01   0.875   0.599   0.539   0.579   0.6532   003   A   C      14-2    15-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.786   0.604   0.540   0.583   0.6335   007   C   002    11-3     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   03   0.867   0.554   0.534   0.547   0.6271   010   C   003    13-2    16-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   04   0.769   0.589   0.536   0.571   0.6207   015   C   007    10-3    11-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   05   0.813   0.561   0.514   0.545   0.6119   020   A   C      13-3    15-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   06   0.706   0.587   0.529   0.568   0.6025   026   C   013    12-5    12-5   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.813   0.524   0.513   0.520   0.5933   037   A   C-2    13-3    14-4   MACF     DeSales
MA   08   0.600   0.633   0.503   0.590   0.5922   040   C   022     9-6    11-7   LAND     Susquehanna
                                       
S   001   0.882   0.564   0.515   0.547   0.6310   009   A   C      15-2    17-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   002   0.944   0.498   0.543   0.513   0.6209   013   C   006    17-1    17-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.917   0.512   0.521   0.515   0.6154   018   C   009    11-1    15-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.846   0.524   0.528   0.525   0.6056   023   B   001    11-2    16-3   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   005   0.733   0.565   0.527   0.552   0.5977   030   C   015    11-4    12-4   UAA      Emory
S   006   0.750   0.553   0.521   0.543   0.5945   034   C   017     9-3    15-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   007   0.846   0.482   0.515   0.493   0.5815   055   N/A        11-2    15-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.875   0.472   0.499   0.481   0.5794   059   A          14-2    14-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.706   0.548   0.495   0.530   0.5743   065   A          12-5    12-5   SCAC     Austin
S   010   0.750   0.516   0.502   0.511   0.5711   068   C   036    12-4    14-4   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.765   0.502   0.494   0.499   0.5657   075   C   041    13-4    13-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
                                       
GL   01   0.813   0.523   0.528   0.525   0.5967   032   A   C      13-3    14-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   02   0.889   0.480   0.507   0.489   0.5890   043   A   C-2     8-1    12-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   03   0.688   0.582   0.499   0.554   0.5875   048   C   028    11-5    12-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   04   0.778   0.525   0.501   0.517   0.5820   053   C   031     7-2    12-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   05   0.824   0.481   0.517   0.493   0.5757   064   A          14-3    14-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   06   0.800   0.457   0.500   0.471   0.5536   097   C   060    12-3    12-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.714   0.459   0.551   0.490   0.5458   106   C   068    10-4    12-6   OAC      Heidelberg
GL   08   0.722   0.471   0.507   0.483   0.5431   111   A          13-5    13-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   09   0.714   0.483   0.491   0.486   0.5427   113   C   073    10-4    14-4   NCAC     Wittenberg
                                       
MW   01   0.846   0.598   0.548   0.581   0.6474   004   A   C      11-2    14-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.833   0.579   0.557   0.571   0.6368   006   A   C      10-2    14-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.824   0.564   0.534   0.554   0.6212   012   C   005    14-3    15-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.706   0.565   0.541   0.557   0.5941   036   C   019    12-5    13-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   05   0.933   0.439   0.533   0.471   0.5863   050   A          14-1    15-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.882   0.462   0.498   0.474   0.5760   063   A          15-2    17-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.778   0.510   0.499   0.506   0.5742   067   C   035    14-4    15-4   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.500   0.625   0.521   0.590   0.5677   071   C   039     7-7     9-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   09   0.917   0.426   0.496   0.449   0.5658   074   A          11-1    14-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   10   0.647   0.529   0.553   0.537   0.5645   077   C   043    11-6    11-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   11   0.500   0.588   0.496   0.557   0.5430   112   C   072     9-9    10-9   HCAC     Transylvania
                                       
W   001   0.889   0.642   0.554   0.613   0.6819   001   A   C      16-2    16-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.889   0.613   0.564   0.597   0.6698   002   C   001    16-2    17-2   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   003   0.867   0.578   0.543   0.567   0.6417   005   A   C      13-2    16-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.556   0.545   0.553   0.6310   008   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.765   0.581   0.562   0.575   0.6221   011   C   004    13-4    14-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.875   0.494   0.513   0.501   0.5942   035   C   018     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   007   0.688   0.568   0.528   0.555   0.5879   046   C   026    11-5    11-5   MIAC     Augsburg
W   008   0.750   0.531   0.538   0.533   0.5873   049   C   029    12-4    12-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   009   0.571   0.595   0.557   0.582   0.5796   058   C   034     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   010   0.938   0.424   0.512   0.453   0.5742   066   B   002    15-1    18-2   IND      Chapman
W   011   0.611   0.555   0.550   0.554   0.5679   070   C   038    11-7    11-7   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   012   0.600   0.565   0.534   0.555   0.5662   072   C   040     9-6    10-7   MIAC     St. Johns
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/29/2010            

[magicman]

KnightSlappy,

Medaille was 5th in the East in your previous rankings with a 16-1 regional record and RPI of .5927. They win the only game they've played since then, are now 17-1 in Region and they fall off the list? How did Nazareth who was in 7th place previously with an RPI of .5897 lose their only game since then and move ahead of Medaille? Can that be right? Just asking because it seems odd.