Pool C

[Hugenerd]

Ronk: The criteria say "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. Better to have results than to not have results.

I personally have never liked this criterion. Because if you have a WP and an SOS, what does results versus regionally ranked add? If two teams looked like this:

Team 1
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 2-0

Team 2
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 0-0

You can't say that Team 1 has played a more difficult schedule, because they have identical SOS numbers. You could say they have two "good wins", but to end up with the same SOS they've probably also suffered a couple of "bad losses".

I think you mean WP at the end of this post. SOS is not affected by Ws and Ls.

Apparently have "good wins" is better than having "bad losses." 

I would go as far as saying, under the current criteria, 'good losses' are better than average wins, in terms of how they affect OWP.

[Greek Tragedy]

Told you to be patient, Hugenerd

I still think the rankings should have been closer to this last week, as nothing has really changed in the past week, but at least you can somewhat justify the current rankings.  I would still put MIT ahead of West Conn, as West Conn has 2 losses to ~0.500 teams (games they should have won), but the way the criteria are setup, you dont get penalized that much for bad losses. Albertus also is in a tough spot, because of the quality of their conference opponents, but that is a difficult case to deal with under pretty much any criteria.

Hopefully MIT will come out tonight and show they deserve their ranking, as they get their biggest test of the year so far, in a rivalry game at WPI.

Obivously results against regionally ranked opponents goes a long way since West Conn has played 6 (going 4-2) just within their conference, along with going 1-1 with other regionally ranked opponents in Albertus Magnus and Richard Stockton.  I think MIT has just two (0-1 vs. WPI and 1-0 vs. Tufts).

[Hugenerd]

MIT is able to take care of WPI on the road.  They trailed 35-31 at the half, but started the 2nd on a 21-1 run and take control of the game.  More coverage on the NEWMAC board.

Because of the away weighting factor, this game will increase MITs OWP by nearly a full 0.02, and should but their OWP/OOWP in the ~0.52 ballpark.  Unfortunately, because MIT won the conference and are hosting the NEWMAC tourney, they will be penalized with potentially two home games that will be weighted 0.75, and could bring their OWP value down slightly prior to the NCAA selections.  On the other hand, WPI has the opportunity to improve upon their OWP value with neutral/away games, which will hopefully help their Pool C chances.

[SilversSports]

Could be a shakeup coming next week in the West as SP and RF lost tonight and either WW or RF will lose for sure on Saturday. 

[Greek Tragedy]

True, but Whitewater did lose last week to Superior and no one jumped them.

[augie_superfan]

Disclaimer:  If all this SOS number crunching stuff bugs you, might as well skip this post 

Lately there has been a bunch of talk about the SOS and if it's fair, etc., etc.  I wanted to take a look at the modifier that is being used to weight home and away games.  The current modifier is 1.25 for away games and 0.75 for home games.  I'll steal an example from Hugenerd that shows how these two games are practically viewed as equals when the weighting is used:

23-2 played at home:  0.92 OWP x 0.75 = 0.69 OWP
14-11 played on the road: 0.56 OWP x 1.25 = 0.70 OWP

So, the NCAA is basically saying that playing these two teams in different locations causes the difficulty of the games to be nearly equal...I can then interpret that to mean that they would expect the same outcome (win/loss) in either situation (or atleast the same chance to win or lose).  With my database of games, I was able to explore this question.

Since the OWP calculation is done with the teams' current winning percentages, that is waht I used to evaluate this (instead of using the win % at the time of the actual game).  I took all 4529 games between Division III teams that are in my database as of today.  I looked strictly at what the home and away teams' winning percentages were and which team won the game.  I first looked at a 0.500 WP team (actually all teams slightly above and below this).  I analyzed each of their games and looked at how often they won vs. other teams over a range of winning percentages.  I also broke these results up into home and away games.  So out of this I get how often a 0.500 team beats any other team rated by the opposing team's winning percentage.  I could also find the break even point where a 0.500 team should be expected to win half their games.  Here is what I found:

For a 0.500 WP team, they can be expected to win half of their games against teams with the following winning percentages:

When at home:  0.617
When on the road:  0.417

This makes complete sense that they should beat better teams at home and struggle more on the road.  If I have analyzed this correctly, then factors around 1.19 and 0.81  would be appropriate to account for this difference.

I also wondered if this same value would hold for good and bad teams.  So, I tried this for teams near 0.75 WP and teams near 0.25 WP.  Here is what I have found:

A 0.750 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.857
When on the road: 0.650

This spread would come out with factors of 1.14 and 0.86

A 0.250 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.317
When on the road: 0.172

This spread would come out with factors of 1.28 and 0.72 

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.



Another way I looked at it was by taking these same three teams (0.25,0.50, and 0.75) and seeing how likely they would be to beat a 23-2 team at home or a 14-11 team on the road.  If we use the NCAA's weighting factors then we should see them have an equal likelihood of winning the games...but we don't.

Team	Chance of beating 23-2 @ home	Chance of beating 14-11 on road
0.25 WP	< 1%	9%
0.50 WP	20%	35%
0.75 WP	45%	57%

[fritzdis]

I think the multipliers are also applied to OOWP, which makes for the following "equivalent" games:

Home vs 1.000 WP, .500 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625
Road vs .500 WP, .500 OWP - 1.25 * (0.5 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625

Home vs 1.000 WP, .700 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.7 * 1/3) = 0.675
Road vs .660 WP, .300 OWP - 1.25 * (0.66 * 2/3 + 0.3 * 1/3) = 0.675

[KnightSlappy]

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.

The 1.25/.75 is so, so much better than the 1.4/0.6 they used a year ago (but still a bit high). Sounds like my feelings then line up pretty well with what you're saying now. I did some rough calculations and figured 1.2/0.8 would be decent.

Not sure how 1.4 / 0.6 is justified... it takes about 90 seconds with a calculator (or 3 minutes using fingers and toes) to pick much more reasonable numbers in the 1.2 / 0.8 range.

[Hugenerd]

Disclaimer:  If all this SOS number crunching stuff bugs you, might as well skip this post 

Lately there has been a bunch of talk about the SOS and if it's fair, etc., etc.  I wanted to take a look at the modifier that is being used to weight home and away games.  The current modifier is 1.25 for away games and 0.75 for home games.  I'll steal an example from Hugenerd that shows how these two games are practically viewed as equals when the weighting is used:

23-2 played at home:  0.92 OWP x 0.75 = 0.69 OWP
14-11 played on the road: 0.56 OWP x 1.25 = 0.70 OWP

So, the NCAA is basically saying that playing these two teams in different locations causes the difficulty of the games to be nearly equal...I can then interpret that to mean that they would expect the same outcome (win/loss) in either situation (or atleast the same chance to win or lose).  With my database of games, I was able to explore this question.

Since the OWP calculation is done with the teams' current winning percentages, that is waht I used to evaluate this (instead of using the win % at the time of the actual game).  I took all 4529 games between Division III teams that are in my database as of today.  I looked strictly at what the home and away teams' winning percentages were and which team won the game.  I first looked at a 0.500 WP team (actually all teams slightly above and below this).  I analyzed each of their games and looked at how often they won vs. other teams over a range of winning percentages.  I also broke these results up into home and away games.  So out of this I get how often a 0.500 team beats any other team rated by the opposing team's winning percentage.  I could also find the break even point where a 0.500 team should be expected to win half their games.  Here is what I found:

For a 0.500 WP team, they can be expected to win half of their games against teams with the following winning percentages:

When at home:  0.617
When on the road:  0.417

This makes complete sense that they should beat better teams at home and struggle more on the road.  If I have analyzed this correctly, then factors around 1.19 and 0.81  would be appropriate to account for this difference.

I also wondered if this same value would hold for good and bad teams.  So, I tried this for teams near 0.75 WP and teams near 0.25 WP.  Here is what I have found:

A 0.750 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.857
When on the road: 0.650

This spread would come out with factors of 1.14 and 0.86

A 0.250 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.317
When on the road: 0.172

This spread would come out with factors of 1.28 and 0.72 

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.



Another way I looked at it was by taking these same three teams (0.25,0.50, and 0.75) and seeing how likely they would be to beat a 23-2 team at home or a 14-11 team on the road.  If we use the NCAA's weighting factors then we should see them have an equal likelihood of winning the games...but we don't.

Team	Chance of beating 23-2 @ home	Chance of beating 14-11 on road
0.25 WP	< 1%	9%
0.50 WP	20%	35%
0.75 WP	45%	57%

This is fantastic.  My only question is, why cant someone at the NCAA do this? And, instead of just using one season, why cant they do it over a 5-10 year period to get a larger data set.  This would give some justification to the modifier, rather than just guessing one and hoping it sticks (I think we all remember that last year the modifiers were 1.40 and 0.60, which were absolutely outrageous).

What I take from this data is that the current modifier is really only valid for bad teams, when the likelihood of winning or losing is low.  However, the modifier should not really be catered to this subset of teams, as they are not the ones that need to be conisdered for the postseason, or even the 0.500 group.  Therefore, based on just this analysis (I would feel more comfortable if the NCAA would do one spanning more seasons), I think a home/away factor of 1.15/0.85 would probably be most appropriate, considering that most teams that are in the postseason discussion will have records of ~0.75 or better.  Or, better yet, they could find the average record of teams that make the postseason (which may or may not be higher than 0.75) and calculate the modifier based on teams with a record similar to that.

Well done superfan, hopefully someone at the NCAA is reading this or that the idea of substantiating the multiplier by using an actual empirical analysis is considered.  It would be nicer to have some defense of the numbers that are used, rather than having to listen to certain posters coming on here and repeatedly 'justify' the multiplier by saying 'thats how it is defined in the handbook' or those two numbers are clearly significantly different.  I would even take it a step further and have the NCAA do more than compare just OWP/OOWPs arbitrarily.  Why not expand the SOS formula further?  We have computers now, right? Is truncating at the 2nd term (OOWP) a good approximation?  I am pretty sure if you get someone who knows how to code, you could have them numerically compute a more true SOS by doing a numerical sum that expands out many more terms.  Also, if so much weight is going to be given to SOS, why not look seperately at SOS in wins compared to just overall SOS?  Does it make sense to give teams tons of credit in a primary criteria for playing teams they cant beat?  If you have over a 0.540 SOS overall, but only a 0.440 SOS in wins, is that really telling us you can beat good teams?  With the way the mulipliers are setup now, there are many examples that can be given where this is in fact the case.

Obviously its too late for this year, but hopefully the NCAA will be more rigorous in their methodology in the years ahead.

[augie_superfan]

I think the multipliers are also applied to OOWP, which makes for the following "equivalent" games:

Home vs 1.000 WP, .500 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625
Road vs .500 WP, .500 OWP - 1.25 * (0.5 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625

Home vs 1.000 WP, .700 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.7 * 1/3) = 0.675
Road vs .660 WP, .300 OWP - 1.25 * (0.66 * 2/3 + 0.3 * 1/3) = 0.675

Thanks, I forgot to clarify that I had to assume an OWP of 0.5 for these calcs.  In the offseason I'm going to try to look at it a bit deeper and include all of last years games also so I should have over 10,000 data points to work with.

[Greek Tragedy]

HERE IS THE REGIONAL RANKINGS FOR WEEK 2 WITH THIS WEEK'S SCHEDULES AND RESULTS SO FAR

TEAMS IN BOLD ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS

ATL
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL	SCHEDULE
#1	#2	William Paterson**	NJAC	21-3, 21-3	WON vs CCNY 75-49
#2	#1	Staten Island	CUNYAC	18-2, 19-4	WON at St. Joseph's (Bklyn) 76-54
#3	#3	St. Joseph's (LI)	SKY	19-2, 19-3	WON at SUNY-Old Westbury 102-81, at SUNY-Purchase 2/18
#4	#4	Richard Stockton**	NJAC	16-6, 17-7	WON at Kean 80-77
#5	#5	New Jersey City	NJAC	15-5, 17-6	LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51
EAST
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Hartwick	E8	21-2, 22-2	vs Stevens 2/18
#2	#2	Oswego State	SUNYAC	19-2, 19-3	WON vs Geneseo St. 67-56, vs Buffalo St. 2/17, vs Fredonia St. 2/18
#3	#4	Hobart	LL	18-4, 19-4	at Bard 2/17, at Vassar 2/18
#4	#3	NYU	UAA	18-4, 18-4	vs Chicago 2/17, vs Washington U. 2/19
#5	#5	Medaille	AMCC	20-2, 21-2	WON vs D'Youville, vs La Roche 2/18
#6	#6	Nazareth	E8	16-6, 16-8	at St. John Fisher 2/18
GR. LK.
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Hope	MIAA	14-0, 22-1	WON at Olivet 75-60, vs Trine 2/18
#2	#2	Wittenberg	NCAC	16-4, 18-5	WON at DePauw 56-55, vs Hiram 2/18
#3	#3	Wooster	NCAC	17-4, 19-4	WON vs Allegheny 91-61, vs DePauw 2/18
#4	#4	Ohio Wesleyan	NCAC	16-6, 17-6	WON at Wabash 82-81, Denison 2/18
#5	#5	Wabash	NCAC	15-6, 17-6	LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, at Oberlin 2/18
#6	N/A	Bethany (W.Va.)	PrAC	19-2, 20-3	WON vs Westminster (Pa.) 91-65, at St. Vincent 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#6	Capital	OAC	14-7, 15-8
MID.ATL
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Cabrini	CSAC	23-0, 23-1	WON at Keystone 96-85
#2	#2	Keystone	CSAC	20-4, 20-4	LOST vs Cabrini 96-85
#3	#5	Franklin & Marshall	CC	21-2, 21-2	WON at Johns Hopkins 71-63, at Dickinson 2/18
#4	#4	Mary Washington*	CAC	15-5, 16-7	WON vs Stevenson 94-59, at Wesley 2/18
#5	#6	St. Mary's (Md)*	CAC	16-5, 18-6	vs Frostburg State 2/18
#6	#7	Messiah	MACC	15-6, 16-6	WON at Alvernia 57-54, vs Elizabethtown 2/18
#7	#8	Misericordia	MACF	17-6, 17-6	WON vs King's 60-53, at Manhattanville 2/18
#8	N/A	Widener	MACC	13-6, 17-6	WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, at Albright 2/18
#9	#3	Lycoming	MACC	15-6, 17-7	WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, vs Alvernia 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#9	Alvernia	MACC	14-7, 16-7
MW
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Washington U.	UAA	17-4, 17-5	at Brandeis 2/17, at NYU 2/19
#2	#3	Lake Forest	MWC	18-2, 19-2	WON vs Knox 64-50, at Grinnell 2/18
#3	#2	Transylvania	HCAC	20-1, 21-2	WON at Hanover 74-65, at Bluffton 2/18
#4	#4	Wheaton (IL)	CCIW	16-5, 18-5	vs North Park 2/18
#5	#5	North Central (IL)	CCIW	15-5, 16-7	WON at North Park 75-49, vs Millikin 2/18
#6	#6	Illinois Wesleyan	CCIW	15-6, 17-6	WON at Millikin 84-45, vs Elmhurst 2/18
#7	N/A	Hanover	HCAC	16-5, 16-6	LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, at Rose-Hulman 2/18
#8	#7	Edgewood	NATH	16-5, 18-5	LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, vs Concordia (IL) 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#8	Concordia (WI)	NATH	17-4, 18-4
NE
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Amherst	NESCAC	20-2, 22-2	vs Hamilton 2/18
#2	#2	Middlebury	NESCAC	20-2, 22-2	vs Williams 2/18
#3	#4	W. Connecticut	LEC	19-4, 19-4	LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, vs Plymouth State 2/18
#4	#7	MIT	NEWMAC	22-1, 22-1	WON at WPI 71-66
#5	#8	Keene State*	LEC	15-4, 18-5	LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 65-62, at Rhode Island College 2/18
#6	#3	Rhode Island College	LEC	18-5, 18-5	WON Western Connecticut 79-78, vs Keene State 2/18
#7	#5	WPI	NEWMAC	17-5, 17-5	LOST vs MIT 71-66, vs Clark 2/18
#8	#9	Wesleyan (Conn)	NESCAC	19-4, 19-5	vs Bowdoin 2/18
#9	#6	E. Connecticut*	LEC	18-5, 18-5	WON at Keene State 65-62, at Mass-Boston 2/18
#10	#12	Albertus Magnus	GNAC	22-1, 22-1	WON at Johnson and Wales 87-73, vs St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/18
#11	#11	Becker	NECC	19-4, 19-4	WON at Wheelock 74 -69, at Mitchell 2/18
#12	#10	Tufts	NESCAC	16-7, 16-7	vs Bates 2/18
SOUTH
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	Mary Hardin-Baylor	ASC	21-1, 22-1	vs Schreiner 2/16, at Texas Lutheran 2/18
#2	#2	Virginia Wesleyan	ODAC	18-3, 19-3	WON at Lynchburg 73-62, vs Emory and Henry 2/18, vs Washington and Lee 2/19
#3	#4	Randolph-Macon	ODAC	16-3, 19-4	at hampden-Sydney 2/18
#4	#3	Birmingham-Southern	SCAC	19-1, 22-1	WON at Berry 69-58, vs Oglethorpe 2/18
#5	#6	Emory	UAA	18-4, 18-4	at Carnegie Mellon 2/17, at Case Western Reserve 2/19
#6	#5	Christopher Newport	USAC	16-4, 19-4	WON at Shenandoah 69-60, vs Averett 2/18
#7	#7	Guilford	ODAC	15-6, 16-7	at Eastern Mennonite 2/18
#8	#8	Hardin-Simmons	ASC	15-6, 17-6	vs Sul Ross State 2/16, vs Howard Payne 2/18
WEST
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#1	#1	River Falls*	WIAC	18-3, 18-5	LOST at La Crosse 74-66, vs Whitewater 2/18
#2	#2	Stevens Point*	WIAC	17-4, 19-4	LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, at Eau Claire 2/18
#3	#3	Whitewater*	WIAC	20-3, 20-3	WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, at River Falls 2/18
#4	#4	Whitworth	NWC	19-2, 20-3	WON at Whitman 81-74, vs Willamette 2/18
#5	#5	CMS	SCIAC	15-1, 21-1	WON at Cal Lutheran 57-46, at Occidental 2/18
#6	#7	Gustavus Adolphus	MIAC	17-5, 18-5	WON at Concordia-Moorhead, vs Bethel 2/18
#7	#6	St. Thomas	MIAC	15-6, 16-6	WON at Bethel 69-55, vs St. Mary's (MN) 2/18
#8	#9	Whitman	NWC	15-6, 17-6	LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, vs Willamette 2/17
#9	N/A	Puget Sound	NWC	13-5, 18-5	at Lewis and Clarke 2/17, at Linfield 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#8	Dubuque	IIAC	15-5, 16-8

[Greek Tragedy]

IN THIS TABLE, I TOOK OUT THE CONFERENCE LEADERS, USING THEM AS POOL A (AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS).  IF TEAMS WERE TIED ATOP THEIR RESPECTIVE CONFERENCE, I TOOK OUT THE HIGHER RANKED TEAM. 

I'm going to take a quick look at each region and throw out some thoughts.  I'm not an expert at the Pool C decision-making process, I've never played an expert on T.V. and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in quite sometime.  Admittedly, I haven't had time to look at SOS and stuff like that.  I'm just basing my initial thoughts on the regional rankings.

Comments are encouraged!

ATL
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL	SCHEDULE
#4	#4	Richard Stockton**	NJAC	16-6, 17-7	WON at Kean 80-77
#5	#5	New Jersey City	NJAC	15-5, 17-6	LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51

Richard Stockton will probably have to get into the NJAC Final and lose to William Paterson to secure a Pool C spot.  I don't NJCU has a chance considering they already lost this week.

EAST
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#4	#3	NYU	UAA	18-4, 18-4	vs Chicago 2/17, vs Washington U. 2/19
#6	#6	Nazareth	E8	16-6, 16-8	at St. John Fisher 2/18

I think NYU is in.  Sorry Nazareth.   

GR. LK.
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#3	#3	Wooster	NCAC	17-4, 19-4	WON vs Allegheny 91-61, vs DePauw 2/18
#4	#4	Ohio Wesleyan	NCAC	16-6, 17-6	WON at Wabash 82-81, Denison 2/18
#5	#5	Wabash	NCAC	15-6, 17-6	LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, at Oberlin 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#6	Capital	OAC	14-7, 15-8

Wooster is in, but the rest of the NCAC is on the fence, at best.

MID.ATL
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#2	#2	Keystone	CSAC	20-4, 20-4	LOST vs Cabrini 96-85
#5	#6	St. Mary's (Md)*	CAC	16-5, 18-6	vs Frostburg State 2/18
#8	N/A	Widener	MACC	13-6, 17-6	WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, at Albright 2/18
#9	#3	Lycoming	MACC	15-6, 17-7	WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, vs Alvernia 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#9	Alvernia	MACC	14-7, 16-7

Keystone should be in, and possibly St. Mary's

MW
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#4	#4	Wheaton (IL)	CCIW	16-5, 18-5	vs North Park 2/18
#6	#6	Illinois Wesleyan	CCIW	15-6, 17-6	WON at Millikin 84-45, vs Elmhurst 2/18
#7	N/A	Hanover	HCAC	16-5, 16-6	LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, at Rose-Hulman 2/18
#8	#7	Edgewood	NATH	16-5, 18-5	LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, vs Concordia (IL) 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#8	Concordia (WI)	NATH	17-4, 18-4

I think the CCIW is only getting one Pool C team and the NathCon is just getting the Pool A.

NE
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#2	#2	Middlebury	NESCAC	20-2, 22-2	vs Williams 2/18
#3	#4	W. Connecticut	LEC	19-4, 19-4	LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, vs Plymouth State 2/18
#6	#3	Rhode Island College	LEC	18-5, 18-5	WON Western Connecticut 79-78, vs Keene State 2/18
#7	#5	WPI	NEWMAC	17-5, 17-5	LOST vs MIT 71-66, vs Clark 2/18
#8	#9	Wesleyan (Conn)	NESCAC	19-4, 19-5	vs Bowdoin 2/18
#9	#6	E. Connecticut*	LEC	18-5, 18-5	WON at Keene State 65-62, at Mass-Boston 2/18
#12	#10	Tufts	NESCAC	16-7, 16-7	vs Bates 2/18

The LEC could get two Pool Cs out of Eastern Connecticut, Western Connecticut and Rhode Island College.  Middlebury is a lock, but WPI could be left out.

SOUTH
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#3	#4	Randolph-Macon	ODAC	16-3, 19-4	at hampden-Sydney 2/18
#5	#6	Emory	UAA	18-4, 18-4	at Carnegie Mellon 2/17, at Case Western Reserve 2/19
#7	#7	Guilford	ODAC	15-6, 16-7	at Eastern Mennonite 2/18
#8	#8	Hardin-Simmons	ASC	15-6, 17-6	vs Sul Ross State 2/16, vs Howard Payne 2/18

I think it'll be real tough for two ODAC teams to get in.

WEST
WK2	WK1	TEAM	CON.	REG./OVERALL
#2	#2	Stevens Point*	WIAC	17-4, 19-4	LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, at Eau Claire 2/18
#3	#3	Whitewater*	WIAC	20-3, 20-3	WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, at River Falls 2/18
#7	#6	St. Thomas	MIAC	15-6, 16-6	WON at Bethel 69-55, vs St. Mary's (MN) 2/18
#8	#9	Whitman	NWC	15-6, 17-6	LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, vs Willamette 2/17
#9	N/A	Puget Sound	NWC	13-5, 18-5	at Lewis and Clarke 2/17, at Linfield 2/18
		DROPPING OUT
	#8	Dubuque	IIAC	15-5, 16-8

The WIAC isn't making it easy on themselves, but should still get two Pool Cs.  St. Thomas is on the fence.

[Ralph Turner]

I agree Greek Tragedy. Thx.   

[SilversSports]

Also, UWRF gets hurt a little bit for next week's rankings with Puget Sound breaking into the ranks as the Falcons lost at PS in November. 

[Greek Tragedy]

Also, UWRF gets hurt a little bit for next week's rankings with Puget Sound breaking into the ranks as the Falcons lost at PS in November.

You can look at that two ways.  It HELPS them because it's another RESULT against a regionally ranked opponent, and then it HURTS because they LOST to them.  I think we've figured out on this board that it's better to lose against regionally ranked opponents than not to play them at all.