Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

[ziggy]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

[HOPEful]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

Or just get rid of it entirely since the SOS calculation already gives value to the strength of schedule.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

Or just get rid of it entirely since the SOS calculation already gives value to the strength of schedule.

Not necessarily. Not every SOS is equal just like not every region is equal. You get a better sense of things when looking at more data across regions. If we went straight SOS and didn't understand the bigger picture, we would be screaming until the cows came home about teams who didn't or did get into the tournament who should or shouldn't.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think looking at who is ranked in the final two weeks is okay. The once-ranked, always-ranked was flawed because teams were rewarded by playing teams ranked early on who should not have been. But there has always been a feeling that having only those on the final rankings doesn't always give an accurate picture either - especially in smaller regions where the team just off the rankings could be just as good as 2/3s of those on the rankings.

Also remember, the committee NEVER looks at it as a hard data set. They don't look at 2-3 vRRO and compare to 4-1 and say the 4-1 is clearly better. They look at the results, they look at the opponent(s), they look at everything inside of that number(s). This actually allows them to potentially look at a couple more results (if there is that much change) and make a more detailed decision. Furthermore, they also look at where teams are ranked, so suddenly a team being on or off the rankings isn't going to make a big difference except they can continue to consider some games they would have had to ignore in the past.

Also remember one major thing: this isn't just about basketball. This is all sports across the board. Outside of the weighted-measure on the SOS, all of the criteria is the same for all sports (for the most part - there are some small exceptions per sport). This will have some affect in basketball, but it could have a much bigger affect on other sports where they may not have a 12 or 13-team region like Northeast basketball and both lacrosse regions (don't get me started with that topic). Many, many, many of these decisions are not being made based on a small microscope of basketball - but on the entire NCAA Division III landscape.

I don't have a problem with a couple of extra results being considered in the grand scheme of things. It might not mean anything in the long run, but at least the committee has more data to go by especially if other sports need that extra data to make better decisions.

[ziggy]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.

Doesn't keeping the "results vs." standard allay those concerns?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.

Doesn't keeping the "results vs." standard allay those concerns?

Yes... thus my comment somewhere else about these working in conjunction with one another and that having one system over the other doesn't work.

I should say, and should have said it earlier but my brain wasn't fully working, that the men's committee has been rather open about doing something to the effect of how are teams against certain record levels as you describe. They have talked about looking at what a team's record is against above .500, above .667, etc. It is not in the official criteria, but the men's committee has pushed the boundaries, some may say too much, of the word "results" to give themselves as much information to make as best a decision as possible. I think that by pushing those boundaries they have done a better and better job with the process. I just don't think we should write them in as official criteria because it starts to get more and more complicated. This allows the committee at least some flexibility which they have demonstrated they seem to use wisely.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

[KnightSlappy]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.

[AO]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.

I suppose that would help negate the NESCAC single round robin SOS advantage.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.

Yes, the WL technically goes down (slightly), but the SOS does not necessarily go down. First off, there is a multiplier. Secondly, they might play a team that has a good WL. Thirdly, every single team they play also plays and thus their SOS may increase if a number of them win and keep winning.

[Greek Tragedy]

So Dave mentioned in the UAA board..."with the addition of 2 Pool C bids..."

Forgive me, I tend to forget everything that was discussed last season, but is the tourney going to 64 teams this upcoming season?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yes- tourney will be 64-teams this season. No byes starting this season.