Pool C

[fantastic50]

As with last year, here's a WP vs SOS graph of the Pool C teams selected (and a few contenders that didn't get in).  In the background are teams selected/not in 2013-17.  Of course, this simple look doesn't include wins vs RRO, head-to-head, etc.  Whitman is off the top of the chart, and Juniata is off of the left side.  The solid line indicates the historical bubble (50% chance) mark, and the dashed lines 90% and 10% chances.

[smedindy]

Loras, again, left scratching their heads....

As I've said in football, there's only one way to guarantee not being left behind - and that's win your league (tournament (sigh)).

Loras' losses to Concordia (WI), Coe, and their first round tournament loss were probably the big issues. Losing at home to a 9-16 team won't win you any favors when your name is on the table and neither will a home first round loss to a team you handled twice during the year.

It was such a cluster this year I'm surprised people got 19 of 21 right.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

[smedindy]

I believe so. It's more noticeable in football where you have conferences with only one out of conference game.

In football, the 2-6 in SOS were WIAC Schools. (Whitewater, Platteville, Stout, Eau Claire, Oshkosh). That's even with Eau Claire being 1-9.

Wittenberg had a high SOS because their one non-conference was Westminster, who went 7-3 in a PAC and played all of the tough teams in the PAC.

[AO]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We forgot to post this yesterday... or more realistically, didn't have time...



The NCAA Division III tournaments are set. We know which 128 teams will be playing for the national championship. But there were some surprises, maybe some controversy, and certainly a lot of questions.

On a special edition of Hoopsville, Dave McHugh was joined by Ryan Scott as they answered questions, tried to understand some of the decisions made, and pointed to some of the more interesting games to watch.

Dave also had a chance to talk more in depth about one of the big stories in the men's bracket, Yeshiva. Men's coach Elliot Steinmetz discussed the team's first ever conference title, NCAA tournament berth, and some of the scheduling changes that will take place to accommodate the school's religious background.

Dave will also talked to the men's committee chairs, Tim Fitzpatrick (Coast Guard Athletics Director), later in the show.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Monday's show here: http://bit.ly/2GFVq3M

Also, all podcasts from Sunday's and Monday's shows are available through their respective show pages... or the info below (where you can also subscribe to the podcast; (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville



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

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.

[Ralph Turner]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.

I am glad that we are addressing this again.

I also hope that the statisticians will investigate:

1)  the impact of the number of teams comprising the Opp. Opp. per conference.  I would contrast the ASC with 1-3 conferences in the Northeast.  The SUNYAC and Liberty League have degrees of isolation that we face in Texas.

2) the progression to .500 with the number of conference games in a 25 game schedule. Is there an optimal number of conference games to maximize the SOS.

3) the "cherry picking" effect. Were I a coach in the Northeast, I would play as many upper echelon teams from as many conferences as I could schedule. Can you "cherry-pick" your non-conference games from past performance to project the highest SOS?

[iwumichigander]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.

I am glad that we are addressing this again.

I also hope that the statisticians will investigate:

1)  the impact of the number of teams comprising the Opp. Opp. per conference.  I would contrast the ASC with 1-3 conferences in the Northeast.  The SUNYAC and Liberty League have degrees of isolation that we face in Texas.

2) the progression to .500 with the number of conference games in a 25 game schedule. Is there an optimal number of conference games to maximize the SOS.

3) the "cherry picking" effect. Were I a coach in the Northeast, I would play as many upper echelon teams from as many conferences as I could schedule. Can you "cherry-pick" your non-conference games from past performance to project the highest SOS?

Not a numbers cruncher - I leave that to posters like Knightslappy, TitanQ or .....  One of the reasons, but not the only reason,  the CCIW went to a conference tournament was to improve chances of getting more than one CCIW team in.  Why? Because in most seasons, the top CCIW teams have high SOS# and three or more get ranked.  So the SOS and vRRO improve even though the CCIW teams beat the c#%p out of each other as you play high SOS and ranked teams in the CCIW tournament.
It is a little more difficult to get three CCIW teams in with the creation of the Central region which merged the CCIW and WIAC in one region (along with WashU and UChgo which were previously in our old region ).

[AO]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.

Yes you can still have a "good" SoS with a 20 game conference schedule but it will require your conference to win a greater share of their 5 non-conference games since you have more losses built into your SoS.  A NESCAC team like Middlebury can replace one of their sub .500 conference foes like Colby with a 19-8 Morrisville State.  Colby will also have the opportunity to not hurt the NESCAC SoS as much since they can rack up more wins against non-conference foes. The maximum possible SoS is lower when you have more conference games. 

[Libertatem Foederis]

Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?

I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.

Yes you can still have a "good" SoS with a 20 game schedule but it will require your conference to win a greater share of their 5 non-conference games since you have more losses built into your SoS.  A NESCAC team like Middlebury can replace one of their sub .500 conference foes like Colby with a 19-8 Morrisville State.  Colby will also have the opportunity to not hurt the NESCAC SoS as much since they can rack up more wins against non-conference foes. The maximum possible SoS is lower when you have more conference games.

To your point regarding the NESCAC, rumor has it the league is considering doing "home & home" in conference in coming seasons (probably not next b/c of contracts already signed but 19'-20').  Going from 10 to 20 conference games and limiting their non-conference games to 4 (I believe NESCAC decided to play 24 , they might change if this happens).  Again to your point I hear coaches within the league are not excited about the possibility.


LF

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We have heard that rumor for years and every time I talk to a basketball coach it ends up being a short conversation. Until we actually see the NESCAC announce something like that or I get a coach who actually confirms it (never have), I am not buying it. Kind of like recruits playing for a team... until I see them on the floor actually playing in a game, it isn't worth considering.

[Gregory Sager]

What I'm wondering is if the NESCAC could be affected by potential NCAA legislation designed to force the ACAA to play regular-season games rather than just a tournament to determine the potential AQ. If the ACAA has to play regular-season games, then the question becomes, "How many regular-season games should the rule require?" That could be back-doored into an edict that would affect the NESCAC if, say, the legislation settled upon an amount equal to a double round-robin for a minimum-sized league (seven teams), which would be twelve regular-season games.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

What I'm wondering is if the NESCAC could be affected by potential NCAA legislation designed to force the ACAA to play regular-season games rather than just a tournament to determine the potential AQ. If the ACAA has to play regular-season games, then the question becomes, "How many regular-season games should the rule require?" That could be back-doored into an edict that would affect the NESCAC if, say, the legislation settled upon an amount equal to a double round-robin for a minimum-sized league (seven teams), which would be twelve regular-season games.

I doubt it... that kind of stuff always has grandfather clauses... like the "only one division" rule (JHU lacrosse, Hobart soccer, name an ice hockey school, etc., etc., etc.) and the MAC having two sides (not divisions as they have always had Freedom and Commonwealth), but two AQs - as long as they act like two different conferences which they didn't necessarily do "back in the day." I suspect the NESCAC would get a grandfather on this.

But furthermore, I don't think the division would institute a "double-round-robin" or the like. I think a very good idea is mandate teams play at least once through a conference. That would make sure you are playing conference opponents and being "a conference." NESCAC does that. Thus, probably not even something they need to be grandfathered into.

[Gregory Sager]

Yeah, I've pretty much figured the same thing. But a guy can dream.