Pool C

[ronk]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?

Well if the 5-5 team finished 21-6 that means just one loss to a non rro while if the 4-0 team went 21-5 that means all five of the losses were against teams not good enough to be a rro.
As a numbers person I know that unfortunately raw data can be twisted all kinds of way to suit whatever perspective you'd like. Do you really expect the NCAA to give up their leeway to justify picks as they see fit?

[7express]

I'm out.  I'm brining my cheatsheet to class tomorrow so if I get up between 9:20 and 10:50 I'll post a selection from a phone, not much I can do while I'm driving.  Should be home for good about 1 PM tomorrow.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?

I'm not sure, but 5-5 is clearly better than 3-1 in the eyes of this committee.

[Greek Tragedy]

I'm out.  I'm brining my cheatsheet to class tomorrow so if I get up between 9:20 and 10:50 I'll post a selection from a phone, not much I can do while I'm driving.  Should be home for good about 1 PM tomorrow.

Wrong board. 

[wally_wabash]

How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.

Really good points all up and down this thread.  Regarding "results vs. RRO"...I remember when the light bulb went off back in the day and we all realized that the results vs. ranked opponents wasn't exclusively talking about wins.  OHHHHH we all said.  I do, however, think that it's irresponsible for the committee to just say that any result vs. a ranked opponent is a good result.  It isn't.  And it really isn't when you start comparing teams from different regions that have different numbers of ranked teams (and not just one or two more or less...lots and lots more or less). 

Yes, it should matter that you played ranked teams.  It should also matter that you beat some of them.  That should matter more than it matters that you showed up to a gym where a ranked team happen to be playing.  You get credit for that in your SOS.  You shouldn't get a ton of extra credit in another criterion, especially if you got hammered by 25 in some of those games. 

In this case...

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?

Well if the 5-5 team finished 21-6 that means just one loss to a non rro while if the 4-0 team went 21-5 that means all five of the losses were against teams not good enough to be a rro.
As a numbers person I know that unfortunately raw data can be twisted all kinds of way to suit whatever perspective you'd like. Do you really expect the NCAA to give up their leeway to justify picks as they see fit?

...5-5 is probably better than 4-0, because 5 is still greater than 4 and 10 games vs. just 4 games would seem to indicate a tougher schedule, but it isn't that cut and dry.  Did you accumulate ten such games vs. ranked opponents by playing in the UAA or in the northeast where there are a jillion ranked teams?  Did the 4-0 team play in a region or conference with less access to such games like the GL or maybe has a geographic isolation issue?  I think you have to scrub a little bit on how those schedules came to be and whether or not that schedule with 10 RRO games is significantly better than the one with just four.  The SOS is a good barometer...well not really, but in this case you can use it to sort of normalize the inequities inherent in the wildly different numbers of ranked teams across each region. 

At the end of the day, when you get down to the last 3-4 at-large selections, you're dealing exclusively with teams that have proven that they can lose games, probably some games that you wouldn't think they'd lose.  They're all at the tail end of the selection process because they lost bad games.  If my goal is to make the field as good as possible, I want to know who beat good teams.  I already know all of these teams can lose.  I need to know who beat tournament caliber teams.  That's the team that makes my tournament better. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.

Really good points all up and down this thread.  Regarding "results vs. RRO"...I remember when the light bulb went off back in the day and we all realized that the results vs. ranked opponents wasn't exclusively talking about wins.  OHHHHH we all said.  I do, however, think that it's irresponsible for the committee to just say that any result vs. a ranked opponent is a good result.  It isn't.  And it really isn't when you start comparing teams from different regions that have different numbers of ranked teams (and not just one or two more or less...lots and lots more or less). 

Yes, it should matter that you played ranked teams.  It should also matter that you beat some of them.  That should matter more than it matters that you showed up to a gym where a ranked team happen to be playing.  You get credit for that in your SOS.  You shouldn't get a ton of extra credit in another criterion, especially if you got hammered by 25 in some of those games. 

Which is why Augustana didn't get in.  They played a lot of good teams, but only won twice.  Winning counts, but there is a reasonable limit.  The committee made a choice, a tough one, but they chose.  Certainly we could believe Albright deserved to get in over Randolph, but we'd also have to admit there's merit in deciding the other way.

[Pat Coleman]

For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count. That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! )

Only if we find 3 in-region games Mr Y.


btw does anybody know if the 70% is for just the regular season or does it include the post-season.

For instance:
A 25 game regular season is 17.5 or 18 in-region games
A 28 game season w/post-season is 19.6 or 20 in-region games

Which are you going to be required to have?

(yes I know your conference tournament would likely put you over either threshold anyway)

I believe it's the games you play before selection time, so that would include conference tournaments.

[Pat Coleman]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

Actually, we've been pushing this point for multiple seasons.

[Pat Coleman]

And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.

[AO]

And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.

Yes, but they should also note the differences between regions.   The #1 (last public rankings) in the South, Virginia Wesleyan is clearly inferior to #3 Stevens Point in the West.

[Pat Coleman]

Which is why I said "can be viewed in comparison to" rather than "is considered better than."

[KnightSlappy]

And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.

So then, even though a team falling out of the rankings gives a "result vs. regionally ranked", they DO look game-by-game and "knock them down" for beating a team that might now be #9 in a region that only ranks six (and give them virtually zero "credit" for it?)?

[AO]

Which is why I said "can be viewed in comparison to" rather than "is considered better than."

Are we sure that the committee penalized Randolph for their relatively weak regionally ranked opponents?  I thought they were being awarded?  Ultimately the criteria is just trying to answer the question of whether you're good within your own region.   The best region might have a lot of parity and thus the strength of schedule would be lower for their pool c candidates.