Pool C

[Greek Tragedy]

Not necessarily. There are a couple of conferences that have either an odd number of teams or uneven divisions.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Not necessarily. There are a couple of conferences that have either an odd number of teams or uneven divisions.

Right, but that kind of messiness is not something I can imagine the NESCAC tolerating.

[fantastic50]

I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

I HIGHLY doubt we will see 6 teams from the NESCAC. I think 5 is a pipe dream. That said, I think four is a distinct possiblility. The NESCAC is far better and far deeper than it has been in a long time, but teams like Amherst I think are putting themselves in danger of playing out of the tournament. I know that sounds crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amherst is 5th in the regional rankings this week... if not lower meaning they have to do more than lose in the first round of the conference tournament. If they lose to Williams (which Ryan's scenario would present), I think the committee would try and ignore their SOS a bit considering they would be 19-7 and dealing with a lot of losses against other teams in the regional rankings - their vRRO might actually be their Achilles heal in this case.

Yes... I am aware their SOS is knocking on .600... but that is my point about a "false SOS" ... if the committee does what they have been saying, Amherst could be in trouble. Even Tufts and Wesleyan are not locks (despite Wesleyan's two wins over Amherst, so far) because their SOS numbers are lower than Amherst. There is a chance Amherst gets in but Tufts and even Wesleyan are in trouble (though, Wesleyan not getting in compared to Amherst in this situation seems odd; I think they are safer than Amherst).

It is a really interesting situation in the Northeast and the NESCAC. This week's rankings will tell us a ton, but six teams in the tournament from the NESCAC? I don't see it happening.

My hat's off to Dave for calling this one.  Clearly, high SOS numbers run up by NESCAC teams are being discounted a bit by the RRAC.  Amherst is indeed 5th (and fourth-best among NESCAC teams) and Williams is 7th, below Mass-Dartmouth. 

I still think that Middlebury, Tufts, and Wesleyan are safe, but that the NESCAC gets "only" four if Amherst beats Williams in the first round.  If Williams reaches the final, they would seem to be a good bet for a Pool C and Amherst probably still sneaks in, but upset-ridden conference tournaments elsewhere could lead to both being on the bubble in that scenario.

[Greek Tragedy]

I don't consider a 5-team division and a 6-team division all that messy. They could always just play a 16-18 game unbalanced schedule, keeping the 2 traditional 3-team trios together.

[fantastic50]

Here's my latest forecast, based on simulations of the remainder of the regular season and conference tournaments.  Automated mock selections are made using a modified RPI, with penalties for WP<.720 and SOS<.510, adjusments for wins vRRO, adjustments based on current regional rankings, and with a small degree of randomness to account for uncertainty regarding committee selections among similarly-qualified teams.  Raw score/schedule data is from Ken Massey's site & d3hoops.com

Listings are as follows:
Conference (if projected to win AQ) or Pool C ranking
Record & conference record
SOS & record vs regionally ranked opponents
Current regional ranking (or just region, if unranked)
Current tournament bid probability, unless already a lock or near lock
Probability of getting conference's AQ and of a Pool C berth if no AQ
Probability of getting a Pool C berth if won all remaining games except conference final ("if CF")
Probability of getting a Pool C berth if lost all remaining games ("if lose out")

Locks & near-locks (99%+ for Pool C if they lose all remaining games)
WIAC) UW-River Falls (19-3, 11-2 WIAC, 0.608, 6-2 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 48% AQ
NEWMAC) Babson (23-1, 13-0 NEWMAC, 0.572, 3-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 75% AQ
NESCAC) Middlebury (21-3, 8-2 NESCAC, 0.604, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 38% AQ
NWC) Whitman (23-0, 14-0 NWC, 0.541, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% AQ
OAC) Marietta (20-4, 15-2 OAC, 0.577, 3-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 42% AQ
CAC) Chris Newport (22-2, 16-1 CAC, 0.519, 2-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 73% AQ
C#1) Susquehanna (19-4, 10-3 LAND, 0.563, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) lock, 33% AQ
C#2) Tufts (19-5, 8-2 NESCAC, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 24% AQ
NJAC) Ramapo (23-2, 16-2 NJAC, 0.492, 5-2 vRRO, AT#1) lock, 63% AQ
CSAC) Neumann (22-2, 16-1 CSAC, 0.512, 5-0 vRRO, AT#2) lock, 58% AQ
UAA) Washington U. (18-4, 10-1 UAA, 0.597, 7-3 vRRO, CE#2) lock, 94% AQ
C#3) Rochester (20-2, 9-2 UAA, 0.536, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) near-lock, 6% AQ
HCAC) Hanover (18-3, 15-2 HCAC, 0.523, 2-2 vRRO, GL#4) near-lock, 55% AQ

Very strong position (90%+ if no AQ), but need at least one more win to be a lock
C#4) Wesleyan (CT) (19-5, 6-4 NESCAC, 0.561, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) 99% (16% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
C#5) Whitworth (20-3, 11-3 NWC, 0.533, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) 99% (23% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 79% if lose out
C#6) Salisbury (19-5, 14-3 CAC, 0.539, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 99% (19% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 81% if lose out
MIAA) Hope (19-3, 13-0 MIAA, 0.521, 2-1 vRRO, GL#2) 99% (73% AQ or 98% C), 100% if CF, 91% if lose out
C#7) UW-Whitewater (18-5, 8-5 WIAC, 0.567, 1-3 vRRO, CE#3) 98% (16% AQ or 97% C), 100% if CF, 88% if lose out
C#8) Amherst (17-6, 7-3 NESCAC, 0.602, 5-4 vRRO, NE#5) 96% (10% AQ or 96% C), 100% if CF, 90% if lose out
C#9) Mt St Joseph (17-5, 13-4 HCAC, 0.522, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 95% (20% AQ or 94% C), 99% if CF, 17% if lose out

Strong position (80%+ if no AQ)
LAND) Scranton (18-6, 10-3 LAND, 0.540, 5-3 vRRO, MA#7) 92% (39% AQ or 87% C), 96% if CF, 7% if lose out
LL) St Lawrence (19-4, 13-2 LL, 0.516, 2-4 vRRO, EA#2) 93% (46% AQ or 86% C), 99% if CF, 59% if lose out
CC) Swarthmore (20-4, 14-3 CC, 0.516, 2-2 vRRO, MA#4) 91% (52% AQ or 82% C), 94% if CF, 66% if lose out
C#10) John Carroll (17-6, 14-3 OAC, 0.565, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 88% (36% AQ or 82% C), 97% if CF

Bubble teams (20-79% if no AQ)
C#11) Guilford (19-5, 12-3 ODAC, 0.509, 2-2 vRRO, SO#1) 84% (26% AQ or 79% C), 91% if CF, 27% if lose out
MACC) Lycoming (19-4, 12-3 MACC, 0.539, 0-1 vRRO, MA#5) 91% (58% AQ or 78% C), 79% if CF, 35% if lose out
ASC) Concordia (TX) (16-5, 7-1 ASC, 0.540, 1-1 vRRO, SO#2) 81% (42% AQ or 68% C), 100% if CF
CCIW) Augustana (18-5, 11-3 CCIW, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 79% (43% AQ or 63% C), 99% if CF, 1% if lose out
C#12) UW-Eau Claire (17-6, 8-5 WIAC, 0.566, 3-1 vRRO, CE#4) 64% (12% AQ or 59% C), 100% if CF, 11% if lose out
IIAC) Loras (18-6, 11-4 IIAC, 0.541, 1-1 vRRO, WE#4) 79% (53% AQ or 56% C), 86% if CF
SUNYAC) Oswego State (17-5, 14-2 SUNYAC, 0.513, 3-1 vRRO, EA#3) 72% (37% AQ or 55% C), 98% if CF
SCIAC) C-M-S (16-2, 11-2 SCIAC, 0.479, 2-2 vRRO, WE#5) 77% (49% AQ or 55% C), 87% if CF, 1% if lose out
C#13) Endicott (19-5, 14-3 CCC, 0.513, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 69% (32% AQ or 54% C), 67% if CF, 8% if lose out
C#14) New Jersey City (19-6, 13-5 NJAC, 0.503, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 57% (11% AQ or 52% C), 86% if CF, 29% if lose out
C#15) Cabrini (18-5, 14-3 CSAC, 0.517, 1-4 vRRO, AT#3) 57% (19% AQ or 47% C), 72% if CF, 8% if lose out
NACC) Benedictine (IL) (20-3, 18-1 NACC, 0.492, 0-0 vRRO, CE#7) 82% (68% AQ or 45% C), 57% if CF, 7% if lose out
C#16) MIT (19-5, 11-2 NEWMAC, 0.531, 0-3 vRRO, NE#9) 49% (19% AQ or 37% C), 96% if CF, 15% if lose out
C#17) Brockport (18-5, 13-3 SUNYAC, 0.514, 1-3 vRRO, EA#4) 58% (34% AQ or 36% C), 84% if CF
E8) St John Fisher (18-5, 13-1 E8, 0.536, 1-3 vRRO, EA#5) 75% (61% AQ or 34% C), 61% if CF
C#18) Hardin-Simmons (17-6, 6-2 ASC, 0.553, 2-1 vRRO, SO#3) 49% (25% AQ or 32% C), 86% if CF
C#19) Skidmore (17-6, 12-2 LL, 0.510, 5-1 vRRO, EA#6) 56% (38% AQ or 30% C), 89% if CF
MWC) St Norbert (18-4, 15-2 MWC, 0.504, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 68% (56% AQ or 27% C), 37% if CF
C#20) Carthage (15-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.570, 2-4 vRRO, CE#8) 44% (25% AQ or 25% C), 70% if CF
C#21) Wooster (17-7, 14-3 NCAC, 0.531, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 39% (21% AQ or 23% C), 78% if CF
C#22) LeTourneau (18-4, 9-1 ASC, 0.490, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 42% (25% AQ or 23% C), 54% if CF
C#23) Ripon (17-5, 13-4 MWC, 0.498, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 39% (21% AQ or 23% C), 36% if CF

Longshots (5-20% if no AQ)
C#24) Williams (17-7, 5-5 NESCAC, 0.585, 4-4 vRRO, NE#7) 22% (6% AQ or 17% C), 94% if CF, 2% if lose out
MIAC) St Thomas (MN) (18-6, 14-5 MIAC, 0.525, 0-1 vRRO, WE#3) 45% (34% AQ or 16% C), 30% if CF
C#25) Emory (15-7, 6-5 UAA, 0.549, 2-3 vRRO, SO#4) 16% (0% AQ or 16% C), 94% if CF
C#26) La Verne (15-7, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.528, 3-4 vRRO, WE#7) 32% (21% AQ or 15% C), 70% if CF
C#27) Illinois Wesleyan (16-7, 8-6 CCIW, 0.555, 5-2 vRRO, CE#6) 24% (12% AQ or 13% C), 81% if CF
NCAC) Ohio Wesleyan (18-6, 15-2 NCAC, 0.514, 3-4 vRRO, GL#9) 56% (50% AQ or 12% C), 15% if CF
C#28) Catholic (17-7, 9-4 LAND, 0.547, 2-5 vRRO, MA#6) 20% (10% AQ or 11% C), 82% if CF
C#29) Mass-Dartmouth (16-8, 9-4 LEC, 0.560, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 30% (23% AQ or 10% C), 27% if CF
C#30) Pomona-Pitzer (12-5, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.531, 1-3 vRRO, WE#8) 25% (17% AQ or 10% C), 50% if CF
C#31) Denison (20-4, 14-3 NCAC, 0.463, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 24% (17% AQ or 9% C), 15% if CF
C#32) Thomas More (16-6, 14-3 PAC, 0.499, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 43% (38% AQ or 8% C), 13% if CF
C#33) TCNJ (18-7, 14-4 NJAC, 0.514, 3-4 vRRO, AT#5) 23% (18% AQ or 7% C), 12% if CF
C#34) Roger Williams (19-5, 13-4 CCC, 0.471, 2-1 vRRO, NE) 23% (18% AQ or 7% C), 28% if CF

Real longshots (less than 5% if no AQ, but could get to 5% by reaching conference final)
Keene State (16-8, 9-4 LEC, 0.579, 2-3 vRRO, NE#8) 23% (19% AQ or 4% C), 17% if CF
North Park (16-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, CE) 16% (13% AQ or 4% C), 28% if CF
Moravian (16-6, 10-3 LAND, 0.511, 3-4 vRRO, MA) 22% (18% AQ or 4% C), 23% if CF
CCC) Nichols (19-5, 14-3 CCC, 0.475, 1-1 vRRO, NE) 45% (42% AQ or 4% C), 6% if CF
Cortland (16-7, 11-5 SUNYAC, 0.521, 2-3 vRRO, EA#7) 13% (11% AQ or 3% C), 48% if CF
Gwynedd Mercy (19-5, 13-4 CSAC, 0.475, 0-4 vRRO, AT) 18% (16% AQ or 3% C), 10% if CF
LEC) E Connecticut (16-8, 10-3 LEC, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, NE#11) 45% (43% AQ or 2% C), 7% if CF
USAC) Maryville (TN) (18-5, 9-4 USAC, 0.483, 1-1 vRRO, SO#7) 35% (34% AQ or 2% C), 5% if CF
Emory & Henry (16-7, 11-4 ODAC, 0.528, 1-4 vRRO, SO#8) 17% (16% AQ or 2% C), 6% if CF
Nebraska Wesleyan (16-6, 10-5 IIAC, 0.512, 0-1 vRRO, WE#6) 20% (19% AQ or 1% C), 19% if CF
ODAC) Randolph-Macon (17-7, 13-2 ODAC, 0.520, 1-3 vRRO, SO#6) 33% (32% AQ or 1% C), 8% if CF
Ohio Northern (16-8, 14-3 OAC, 0.537, 2-3 vRRO, GL#8) 18% (17% AQ or 1% C), 12% if CF
Misericordia (17-7, 8-5 MACF, 0.511, 3-2 vRRO, AT) 19% (19% AQ or 1% C), 5% if CF
Carleton (15-7, 13-6 MIAC, 0.538, 1-2 vRRO, WE) 32% (31% AQ or 1% C), 5% if CF
Cal Lutheran (15-6, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.482, 1-3 vRRO, WE) 14% (14% AQ), 7% if CF

Other projected pool A berths
GNAC) Albertus Magnus (19-4, 15-2 GNAC, 0.476, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 57% (56% AQ or 1% C), 2% if CF
SLIAC) Greenville (IL) (18-5, 13-4 SLIAC, 0.459, 0-0 vRRO, CE) 49% (49% AQ), 0% if CF
PAC) St Vincent (17-6, 14-3 PAC, 0.485, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 41% (40% AQ), 0% if CF
CUNYAC) Staten Island (19-5, 16-0 CUNYAC, 0.489, 0-4 vRRO, AT#8) 63% (63% AQ), 1% if CF
NAC) Husson (17-6, 14-2 NAC, 0.490, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 58% (58% AQ), 0% if CF
AMCC) Medaille (18-5, 15-2 AMCC, 0.463, 0-0 vRRO, GL) 54% (54% AQ), 0% if CF
NEAC) SUNYIT (17-6, 9-1 NEAC, 0.473, 0-1 vRRO, EA) 54% (54% AQ), 0% if CF
SKY) Farmingdale State (18-6, 14-1 SKY, 0.476, 0-2 vRRO, AT) 49% (49% AQ), 0% if CF
NECC) Becker (16-6, 12-1 NECC, 0.481, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 50% (50% AQ), 0% if CF
MACF) Eastern (15-9, 10-3 MACF, 0.539, 1-6 vRRO, AT) 36% (36% AQ), 0% if CF
UMAC) Northwestern (MN) (16-6, 12-2 UMAC, 0.450, 0-0 vRRO, WE) 41% (41% AQ), 0% if CF
SCAC) Schreiner (13-10, 10-2 SCAC, 0.552, 0-5 vRRO, SO) 46% (46% AQ), 0% if CF
MASCAC) Fitchburg State (14-10, 9-2 MASCAC, 0.491, 0-3 vRRO, NE) 53% (53% AQ), 0% if CF
SAA) Rhodes (13-10, 10-3 SAA, 0.447, 0-1 vRRO, SO) 44% (44% AQ), 0% if CF

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

Week 1 vRRO = None
Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The Division III season has officially entered "Crunch Time." Regular season schedules are wrapping up, conference tournaments are about to begin, teams are jockeying for conference position or trying to win home-court advantage. And it is all happening the uncertainty of whether NCAA tournament berths are available for a lot of teams.

On Thursday night's Hoopsville, Dave McHugh not only takes another look at this week's Regional Rankings, but also tries to read the tea leaves. He also chats with four teams that all still have something to play for. Whether it is to better position themselves in the eyes of the NCAA committees or just to turn more heads in their conference tournament, these teams are still pushing to continue their seasons.


Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio starting at 7:00 PM ET LIVE. You can watch the show on the official show page here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/feb16 ... or you can watch the live simulcast on Facebook Live. If you miss the show, you can catch-up on Demand or listen to the podcasts (which will be uploaded at the conclusion of the show).

A reminder the Thursday edition of Hoopsville primarily covers the East, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and West regions, but we will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign has less than three weeks remaining, but we are no where close to reaching our goal. Click here for more information: Hoopsville Fundraising Page

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Michael Meek, No. 24 George Fox women's coach
- Katherine Bixby, Dickinson women's coach
- Greg Mitchell, No. 16 Hope men's coach
- Rob Kornaker, St. John Fisher men's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

[Greek Tragedy]

Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.

ATLANTIC
Ramapo - NJAC
Neumann - CSAC
Cabrini - CSAC
NJCU - NJAC

CENTRAL
River Falls - WIAC
Wash U - UAA
Whitewater - WIAC
Eau Claire - WIAC
Augustana - CCIW
IWU - CCIW
Benedictine - NACC
Carthage - CCIW

EAST
Rochester - UAA
St. Lawrence - LL
Oswego - SUNYAC
Brockport - SUNYAC
SJF - E8
Skidmore - LL
Cortland - SUNYAC

GREAT LAKES
Marietta - OAC
Hope - MIAA
Mt. St. Joseph - HCAC
Hanover - HCAC
John Carroll - OAC
Wooster - NCAC
Denison - NCAC

MID ATLANTIC
CNU - CAC
Susquehanna - LAND
Salisbury - CAC
Swarthmore - CC
Lycoming - MACC
Catholic - LAND
Scranton - LAND

NORTHEAST
Babson - NEWMAC
Middlebury - NESCAC
Tufts - NESCAC
Wesleyan - NESCAC
Amherst - NESCAC
UMass - Dartmouth - LEC

SOUTH
Guilford - ODAC
Concordia - Texas - ASC
Hardin-Simmons - ASC
Emory - UAA
LeTourneau - ASC
Randolph - Macon - ODAC

WEST
Whitman - NWC
Whitworth - NWC
St. Thomas - MIAC
Loras - IIAC
Claremon-Mudd-Scripps - SCIAC
Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.

ATLANTIC
Ramapo - NJAC
Neumann - CSAC
Cabrini - CSAC
NJCU - NJAC

CENTRAL
River Falls - WIAC
Wash U - UAA
Whitewater - WIAC
Eau Claire - WIAC
Augustana - CCIW
IWU - CCIW
Benedictine - NACC
Carthage - CCIW

EAST
Rochester - UAA
St. Lawrence - LL
Oswego - SUNYAC
Brockport - SUNYAC
SJF - E8
Skidmore - LL
Cortland - SUNYAC

GREAT LAKES
Marietta - OAC
Hope - MIAA
Mt. St. Joseph - HCAC
Hanover - HCAC
John Carroll - OAC
Wooster - NCAC
Denison - NCAC

MID ATLANTIC
CNU - CAC
Susquehanna - LAND
Salisbury - CAC
Swarthmore - CC
Lycoming - MACC
Catholic - LAND
Scranton - LAND

NORTHEAST
Babson - NEWMAC
Middlebury - NESCAC
Tufts - NESCAC
Wesleyan - NESCAC
Amherst - NESCAC
UMass - Dartmouth - LEC

SOUTH
Guilford - ODAC
Concordia - Texas - ASC
Hardin-Simmons - ASC
Emory - UAA
LeTourneau - ASC
Randolph - Macon - ODAC

WEST
Whitman - NWC
Whitworth - NWC
St. Thomas - MIAC
Loras - IIAC
Claremon-Mudd-Scripps - SCIAC
Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC

Care to share the order in which your Pool C teams came off your "board"?

[sac]

Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.


SOUTH
Guilford - ODAC
Concordia - Texas - ASC
Hardin-Simmons - ASC
Emory - UAA
LeTourneau - ASC
Randolph - Macon - ODAC

Hardin-Simmons beat Concordia last night, that might change the South rankings a little.

[Greek Tragedy]

Not really. I really didn't have a method. Just a stab in the dark. I had a hard time choosing after about 15.

JCU's winning % isn't great, but they have a lot of results against RRO and their SoS is really good.

My bottom teams were Cabrini, Skidmore, Wooster, Catholic and St. Thomas. I nearly put in Carthage.

Mind you, I don't go into the numbers nearly as much as the experts on these boards do.

[Greek Tragedy]

Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.


SOUTH
Guilford - ODAC
Concordia - Texas - ASC
Hardin-Simmons - ASC
Emory - UAA
LeTourneau - ASC
Randolph - Macon - ODAC

Hardin-Simmons beat Concordia last night, that might change the South rankings a little.

I know, hence my statement that my Pool C picks were based on the 2nd Regional Rankings!     

[fantastic50]

Not really. I really didn't have a method. Just a stab in the dark. I had a hard time choosing after about 15.

JCU's winning % isn't great, but they have a lot of results against RRO and their SoS is really good.

My bottom teams were Cabrini, Skidmore, Wooster, Catholic and St. Thomas. I nearly put in Carthage.

Mind you, I don't go into the numbers nearly as much as the experts on these boards do.

With a different approach, I have all but 4 of the same teams as yours, although I think yours are more believable.  In my last bubble evaluation above, I didn't have IWU, Catholic, Emory, or St. Thomas, but instead had Endicott, NJCU, MIT, and Carthage (a couple of whom aren't in regional position to even get on the board right now and need to reach conference finals to contend in Pool C.) 

Of course, there are likely to be several Pool C bids stolen when mediocre teams win conference tournaments, which is partially why my last 7 all have Pool C chances below 50/50 at the moment.

[iwumichigander]

So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

Week 1 vRRO = None
Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.

My head hurts from brain freeze - what is the short version for this season only pleeeeeze

[KnightSlappy]

So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

Week 1 vRRO = None
Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.

My head hurts from brain freeze - what is the short version for this season only pleeeeeze

My takeaway was that the final two week vRRO thing is going into effect next season, not this season.