Pool C

[ronk]

Had Randolph Macon not won the ODAC I doubt Randolph gets in the tournament.

This gave Randolph 2 more RRO's(probably)

By sometime Sunday, I already had Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South region whether they won or lost in that ODAC final.  They were going to have 7 wins against regionally ranked and 16 games played...even with a loss to Virginia Wesleyan.  I think they were a safe bet for a South spot, ahead of Texas-Dallas, win or lose.  I had actually already added the extra win vs regionally ranked to Transylvania, and the others well before that ODAC game started. 

But you are absolutely right that the extra 1-1 for Randolph was a difference maker.  It might have also gotten Transylvania in.  As Mike DeWitt said on Hoopsville about this, "It didn't hurt."

I can't stress enough how great that interview was with DeWitt.  People who care about this stuff (which is about all of us?) should take the time to listen off the archive.

http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/feb25 - starts at 2:13:30

Randolph-Macon becoming regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the non-disclosed rankings and the effects on others(Randolph, Transylvania, Brandeis, Albright,...) provokes a couple of other questions.
If we are not disclosed the rankings, so that we can tell who's affected and how:
(1) Who else became regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the same ranking period?
(2) What number range qualified them for regional ranking? For example, did R-M have to move into the South 1-8 to become regionally-ranked because we understand the RACs rank more teams for pool C selection than are disclosed in the 3 weeks of public rankings.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.

[ronk]

1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.

Dave,
Please ask the women's chair the same question.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

What question specifically?

[ronk]

What question specifically?

What teams became regionally ranked for the 1st time in the last(undisclosed) ranking?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I am not sure I will get that answer... my sources on the men's side are far better than on the women's... and I got the final rankings as such.

[KnightSlappy]

1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.

I would be shocked and offended and -- and hurt if Hope wasn't ranked in the GL in these final rankings.

[ronk]

I am not sure I will get that answer... my sources on the men's side are far better than on the women's... and I got the final rankings as such.

I know-I won't be holding my breath, waiting for the answer, but let's give her the opportunity to inform.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

[sac]

KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

[KnightSlappy]

KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

Who were the respective rro wins over?

[sac]

KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

I think it depends on the year doesn't it?


Now rank em'.......I think you'll see what I did there.
Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .761/.554/1-4
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

[sac]

Who were the respective rro wins over?

Capital, Calvin, Marietta  in that order probably.

or

Capital, Calvin, St. Vincent.

I'm not sure which Team C slappy is referring to.

[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.

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?)?

That seems like a reasonable extension of what I've been told, yes.