Pool C

[fantastic50]

My latest projections on teams' tournament status

Already in, barring a collapse
(A) Nebraska_Wesleyan (19-1, 10-1 ARC, SOS 0.585) proj. 0.923 / 0.575 / 3-2
(A) Whitman (19-1, 11-0 NWC, SOS 0.574) proj. 0.923 / 0.563 / 4-2
(A) Williams (18-2, 5-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.572) proj. 0.840 / 0.589 / 6-4
(A) Augustana (19-2, 11-1 CCIW, SOS 0.551) proj. 0.885 / 0.541 / 5-3
(C#1) Marietta (17-3, 11-2 OAC, SOS 0.562) proj. 0.815 / 0.556 / 4-3
(A) UW-Oshkosh (18-1, 8-0 WIAC, SOS 0.532) proj. 0.885 / 0.552 / 5-3
(A) Randolph-Macon (19-2, 11-1 ODAC, SOS 0.535) proj. 0.885 / 0.528 / 4-3
(A) MIT (18-2, 8-1 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557) proj. 0.852 / 0.555 / 2-1

In solid position
(A) Wooster (17-3, 12-1 NCAC, SOS 0.536) proj. 0.821 / 0.544 / 4-3
(A) St._Thomas (18-1, 14-0 MIAC, SOS 0.520) proj. 0.889 / 0.532 / 2-1
(A) Swarthmore (17-3, 10-3 CC, SOS 0.554) proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-2
(A) Capital (17-3, 12-1 OAC, SOS 0.535) proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 4-3
(A) Christopher_Newport (17-3, 7-2 CAC, SOS 0.539) proj. 0.815 / 0.545 / 3-3
(C#2) Loras (16-5, 8-4 ARC, SOS 0.598) proj. 0.741 / 0.582 / 3-3
(A) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, SOS 0.515) proj. 0.857 / 0.521 / 3-3
(A) Oswego_State (17-2, 12-0 SUNYAC, SOS 0.512) proj. 0.815 / 0.535 / 5-3
(C#3) Wesleyan (15-5, 5-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.602) proj. 0.704 / 0.607 / 5-6
(C#4) Wabash (15-2, 11-1 NCAC, SOS 0.526) proj. 0.840 / 0.530 / 3-3
(C#5) Hamilton (17-2, 3-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.524) proj. 0.808 / 0.551 / 2-4

Bubble-in
(C#6) UW-La_Crosse (15-5, 8-1 WIAC, SOS 0.591) proj. 0.731 / 0.578 / 4-4
(C#7) Emory (14-4, 4-2 UAA, SOS 0.574) proj. 0.760 / 0.561 / 3-4
(C#8) Amherst (15-3, 3-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.509) proj. 0.760 / 0.551 / 4-4
(A) New_Jersey_City (16-5, 11-3 NJAC, SOS 0.551) proj. 0.731 / 0.548 / 4-5
(C#9) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, SOS 0.517) proj. 0.808 / 0.533 / 3-2
(C#10) Rowan (15-5, 10-4 NJAC, SOS 0.552) proj. 0.720 / 0.549 / 5-4
(A) Eastern_Connecticut (16-4, 10-1 LEC, SOS 0.563) proj. 0.778 / 0.540 / 2-3
(C#11) Middlebury (14-5, 4-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.589) proj. 0.680 / 0.602 / 4-6
(A) Arcadia (17-3, 11-0 MACC, SOS 0.531) proj. 0.808 / 0.530 / 2-2
(A) Pomona-Pitzer (16-1, 11-0 SCIAC, SOS 0.493) proj. 0.875 / 0.507 / 1-1
(C#12) St._John's (15-4, 11-3 MIAC, SOS 0.534) proj. 0.778 / 0.540 / 2-3
(C#13) Gordon (18-2, 10-1 CCC, SOS 0.504) proj. 0.821 / 0.515 / 3-3
(C#14) Plattsburgh_State (15-4, 9-3 SUNYAC, SOS 0.559) proj. 0.741 / 0.540 / 4-5
(C#15) Ramapo (15-6, 9-5 NJAC, SOS 0.570) proj. 0.692 / 0.561 / 5-5
(C#16) Salisbury (15-5, 5-4 CAC, SOS 0.568) proj. 0.692 / 0.565 / 4-5

Bubble-out
(C#17) Whitworth (16-4, 8-3 NWC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.778 / 0.537 / 1-3
(C#18) UW-Whitewater (14-5, 3-5 WIAC, SOS 0.564) proj. 0.692 / 0.564 / 2-6
(C#19) Rochester (14-4, 4-3 UAA, SOS 0.540) proj. 0.720 / 0.538 / 4-3
(A) Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, SOS 0.539) proj. 0.800 / 0.527 / 1-2
(C#20) Colby (15-5, 3-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.542) proj. 0.680 / 0.557 / 3-4
(C#21) Wheaton_(Ill.) (15-6, 8-4 CCIW, SOS 0.556) proj. 0.667 / 0.574 / 2-5
(C#22) Guilford (15-5, 9-2 ODAC, SOS 0.526) proj. 0.731 / 0.531 / 3-2
(C#23) WPI (16-4, 7-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.544) proj. 0.731 / 0.552 / 1-2
(C#24) York_(Pa.) (14-6, 7-2 CAC, SOS 0.568) proj. 0.692 / 0.554 / 3-5
(C#25) UW-Stevens_Point (13-6, 5-4 WIAC, SOS 0.588) proj. 0.654 / 0.588 / 1-7
(C#26) Lynchburg (17-4, 8-4 ODAC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.808 / 0.511 / 3-3

Lots of work ahead
(A) La_Roche (18-2, 13-0 AMCC, SOS 0.514) proj. 0.852 / 0.506 / 0-1
(C#27) Wittenberg (14-5, 9-4 NCAC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.692 / 0.543 / 2-5
(C#28) Johns_Hopkins (14-6, 11-2 CC, SOS 0.547) proj. 0.654 / 0.557 / 3-4
(C#29) Scranton (16-4, 5-4 LAND, SOS 0.516) proj. 0.741 / 0.520 / 3-2
(C#30) Endicott (14-6, 7-4 CCC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.704 / 0.539 / 2-5
(C#31) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, SOS 0.586) proj. 0.652 / 0.577 / 1-5
(A) Nazareth (15-3, 9-0 E8, SOS 0.511) proj. 0.769 / 0.515 / 1-3
(C#32) Mary_Washington (14-6, 6-3 CAC, SOS 0.556) proj. 0.667 / 0.555 / 4-4
(C#33) Keene_State (14-7, 9-3 LEC, SOS 0.576) proj. 0.654 / 0.562 / 1-5
(A) Washington_U. (12-6, 5-2 UAA, SOS 0.566) proj. 0.640 / 0.563 / 3-4
(C#34) Emory_and_Henry (14-6, 7-4 ODAC, SOS 0.549) proj. 0.679 / 0.545 / 1-5
(C#35) Drew (15-5, 7-2 LAND, SOS 0.528) proj. 0.731 / 0.528 / 1-4
(C#36) Chicago (12-6, 5-2 UAA, SOS 0.567) proj. 0.640 / 0.564 / 4-2
(A) Moravian (14-6, 7-2 LAND, SOS 0.528) proj. 0.667 / 0.537 / 3-5
(C#37) Mount_Union (16-4, 10-3 OAC, SOS 0.497) proj. 0.731 / 0.517 / 2-4

[dunkin3117]

Do regional rankings come out this week? If so, when?

[lmitzel]

Do regional rankings come out this week? If so, when?

Wednesday afternoon.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

What a weekend!

It was one of those sets of days we have seen often in Division III where at every turn there was something to watch, a result to ponder, and upset to breakdown. The hardwoods across the country had games worth watching all with just three weeks left in the regular season.

It started with Dave and Pat's trip to Holland, Michigan to witness the 200th meeting of Calvin and Hope. The game at DeVos Fieldhouse lived up to expectations. From the crowd to the battle on the court, every moment was a thrill ride.

And the Super Weekend didn't stop there. A number of teams in both Top 25s took losses that not only will shake up the polls, but also shakes up conferences races and adds plenty of intrigue for the first Regional Rankings to be released this week. Oh, and a 200-point explosion from a high-powered offense!

On this special, Monday, edition of Hoopsville, Dave and guests have plenty to try and breakdown. Dave will share his reactions from "The Rivalry" and you will hear one of the crazier stories on how a mom names a son. Plus, hear about the Greenville-Fontbonne game which saw 346 points put on the board. And coaches from Hamilton men and East Texas Baptist women along with one of the top players for WashU women give us insight on how their teams are doing.

Ryan Scott also joins Dave as they give their initial reactions to the latest Top 25 polls and more.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Monday's show can be see LIVE here: http://bit.ly/2UGhZw2 (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- George Barber, Greenville men's head coach
- Adam Stockwell, No. 8 Hamilton
- Becca Clark-Callender, WashU. women's senior guard
- "What Is In a Name?," Dina Hackert, Hope '91
- Rusty Rainbolt, No. 15 East Texas Baptist women's coach
- Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com senior writer (Top 25 Double-Take)

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (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

[fantastic50]

While I think that the regional rankings will be tougher to predict this year, here's what I've got.  (Records are through Sunday's games, vs D3 opponents only.)

Northeast region
1) MIT (19-2, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.905 WP, 0.559 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
2) Williams (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.864 WP, 0.578 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS)
3) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
4) Middlebury (16-5, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.589 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
5) Gordon (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.523 ncSOS)
6) Hamilton (19-2, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.905 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS)
7) Wesleyan (15-6, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.596 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS)
8) Eastern_Connecticut (16-5, 10-2 LEC, 0.762 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.562 ncSOS)
9) Amherst (17-3, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.850 WP, 0.501 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS)
10) Endicott (15-6, 8-4 CCC, 0.714 WP, 0.535 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
11) WPI (16-5, 7-3 NEWMAC, 0.762 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)
----------
Colby (15-7, 3-5 NESCAC, 0.682 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
Keene_State (15-7, 10-3 LEC, 0.682 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.639 ncSOS)
Mass-Dartmouth (14-6, 8-3 LEC, 0.700 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)

East region
1) Oswego_State (17-3, 12-1 SUNYAC, 0.850 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
2) Plattsburgh_State (17-4, 11-3 SUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
3) Rochester (16-4, 6-3 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS)
4) Cortland (15-4, 9-4 SUNYAC, 0.789 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS)
5) St._Lawrence (14-6, 11-2 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.613 ncSOS)
6) Nazareth (16-4, 10-1 E8, 0.800 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
7) Skidmore (13-6, 11-3 LL, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0.597 ncSOS)
8) St._John_Fisher (13-6, 8-2 E8, 0.684 WP, 0.499 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS)
----------
Morrisville_State (15-4, 10-1 NEAC, 0.789 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
Alfred (12-4, 7-2 E8, 0.750 WP, 0.452 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS)
Hobart (13-8, 10-4 LL, 0.619 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS)

Atlantic region
1) Rowan (16-5, 11-4 NJAC, 0.762 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
2) New_Jersey_City (17-5, 12-3 NJAC, 0.773 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
3) Ramapo (15-7, 9-6 NJAC, 0.682 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS)
4) Yeshiva (14-5, 12-2 SKY, 0.737 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
5) Montclair_State (14-8, 9-6 NJAC, 0.636 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS)
6) DeSales (15-5, 8-2 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.497 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
7) TCNJ (13-9, 9-6 NJAC, 0.591 WP, 0.564 SOS, 0.619 ncSOS)
8) Baruch (17-4, 11-1 CUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.442 SOS, 0.456 ncSOS)
----------
Farmingdale_State (14-7, 12-4 SKY, 0.667 WP, 0.495 SOS, 0.585 ncSOS)
Gwynedd_Mercy (15-7, 7-2 AEC, 0.682 WP, 0.486 SOS, 0.484 ncSOS)
Staten_Island (14-8, 10-3 CUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.473 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)

Mid-Atlantic region
1) Swarthmore (18-3, 11-3 CC, 0.857 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.606 ncSOS)
2) Christopher_Newport (18-3, 8-2 CAC, 0.857 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS)
3) Salisbury (16-5, 6-4 CAC, 0.762 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
4) Arcadia (18-3, 12-0 MACC, 0.857 WP, 0.527 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
5) Scranton (17-4, 6-4 LAND, 0.810 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.500 ncSOS)
6) York_(Pa.) (15-6, 8-2 CAC, 0.714 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
7) Moravian (15-6, 8-2 LAND, 0.714 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS)
8) Drew (16-5, 8-2 LAND, 0.762 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS)
----------
Mary_Washington (14-7, 6-4 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
Johns_Hopkins (14-7, 11-3 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.646 ncSOS)
Hood (14-6, 8-4 MACC, 0.700 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS)

South region
1) Randolph-Macon (20-2, 12-1 ODAC, 0.909 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS)
2) Emory (16-4, 6-2 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS)
3) Centre (17-3, 10-1 SAA, 0.850 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
4) Guilford (16-5, 10-2 ODAC, 0.762 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS)
5) Lynchburg (17-5, 8-5 ODAC, 0.773 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS)
6) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.773 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS)
7) Emory_and_Henry (15-6, 8-4 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
8) N.C._Wesleyan (13-3, 11-2 USAC, 0.813 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
----------
Texas-Dallas (16-4, 10-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
Texas_Lutheran (14-5, 9-1 SCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
Louisiana_College (15-5, 8-4 ASC, 0.750 WP, 0.506 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS)

Great Lakes region
1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS)
2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS)
4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS)
5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
6) La_Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
7) Mount_Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.412 ncSOS)
8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS)
9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)
----------
Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
St._Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
Penn_State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.389 ncSOS)

Central region
1) Augustana (20-2, 12-1 CCIW, 0.909 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
2) UW-Oshkosh (19-1, 9-0 WIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.466 ncSOS)
3) UW-La_Crosse (15-6, 8-2 WIAC, 0.714 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
4) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, 0.857 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.442 ncSOS)
5) UW-Whitewater (14-6, 3-6 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.562 SOS, 0.515 ncSOS)
6) UW-Stevens_Point (14-6, 6-4 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.583 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
7) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.727 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
8) Washington_U. (14-6, 7-2 UAA, 0.700 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
----------
Chicago (13-7, 6-3 UAA, 0.650 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
St._Norbert (15-6, 12-1 MWC, 0.714 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS)
Webster (15-4, 11-2 SLIAC, 0.789 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.528 ncSOS)

West region
1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (20-1, 11-1 ARC, 0.952 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS)
2) Whitman (20-1, 12-0 NWC, 0.952 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0.572 ncSOS)
3) St._Thomas (19-1, 15-0 MIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS)
4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.773 WP, 0.598 SOS, 0.575 ncSOS)
5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.944 WP, 0.490 SOS, 0.533 ncSOS)
6) St._John's (16-4, 12-3 MIAC, 0.800 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
7) Whitworth (17-4, 9-3 NWC, 0.810 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.493 ncSOS)
8) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS)
----------
Augsburg (14-5, 11-4 MIAC, 0.737 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (11-5, 8-2 SCIAC, 0.688 WP, 0.519 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS)
Bethany_Lutheran (16-6, 11-2 UMAC, 0.727 WP, 0.465 SOS, 0.480 ncSOS)

[Fifth and Putnam]

While I think that the regional rankings will be tougher to predict this year, here's what I've got.  (Records are through Sunday's games, vs D3 opponents only.)

Northeast region
1) MIT (19-2, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.905 WP, 0.559 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
2) Williams (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.864 WP, 0.578 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS)
3) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
4) Middlebury (16-5, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.589 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
5) Gordon (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.523 ncSOS)
6) Hamilton (19-2, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.905 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS)
7) Wesleyan (15-6, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.596 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS)
8) Eastern_Connecticut (16-5, 10-2 LEC, 0.762 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.562 ncSOS)
9) Amherst (17-3, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.850 WP, 0.501 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS)
10) Endicott (15-6, 8-4 CCC, 0.714 WP, 0.535 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
11) WPI (16-5, 7-3 NEWMAC, 0.762 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)
----------
Colby (15-7, 3-5 NESCAC, 0.682 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
Keene_State (15-7, 10-3 LEC, 0.682 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.639 ncSOS)
Mass-Dartmouth (14-6, 8-3 LEC, 0.700 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)

East region
1) Oswego_State (17-3, 12-1 SUNYAC, 0.850 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
2) Plattsburgh_State (17-4, 11-3 SUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
3) Rochester (16-4, 6-3 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS)
4) Cortland (15-4, 9-4 SUNYAC, 0.789 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS)
5) St._Lawrence (14-6, 11-2 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.613 ncSOS)
6) Nazareth (16-4, 10-1 E8, 0.800 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
7) Skidmore (13-6, 11-3 LL, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0.597 ncSOS)
8) St._John_Fisher (13-6, 8-2 E8, 0.684 WP, 0.499 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS)
----------
Morrisville_State (15-4, 10-1 NEAC, 0.789 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
Alfred (12-4, 7-2 E8, 0.750 WP, 0.452 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS)
Hobart (13-8, 10-4 LL, 0.619 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS)

Atlantic region
1) Rowan (16-5, 11-4 NJAC, 0.762 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
2) New_Jersey_City (17-5, 12-3 NJAC, 0.773 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
3) Ramapo (15-7, 9-6 NJAC, 0.682 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS)
4) Yeshiva (14-5, 12-2 SKY, 0.737 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
5) Montclair_State (14-8, 9-6 NJAC, 0.636 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS)
6) DeSales (15-5, 8-2 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.497 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
7) TCNJ (13-9, 9-6 NJAC, 0.591 WP, 0.564 SOS, 0.619 ncSOS)
8) Baruch (17-4, 11-1 CUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.442 SOS, 0.456 ncSOS)
----------
Farmingdale_State (14-7, 12-4 SKY, 0.667 WP, 0.495 SOS, 0.585 ncSOS)
Gwynedd_Mercy (15-7, 7-2 AEC, 0.682 WP, 0.486 SOS, 0.484 ncSOS)
Staten_Island (14-8, 10-3 CUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.473 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)

Mid-Atlantic region
1) Swarthmore (18-3, 11-3 CC, 0.857 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.606 ncSOS)
2) Christopher_Newport (18-3, 8-2 CAC, 0.857 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS)
3) Salisbury (16-5, 6-4 CAC, 0.762 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
4) Arcadia (18-3, 12-0 MACC, 0.857 WP, 0.527 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
5) Scranton (17-4, 6-4 LAND, 0.810 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.500 ncSOS)
6) York_(Pa.) (15-6, 8-2 CAC, 0.714 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
7) Moravian (15-6, 8-2 LAND, 0.714 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS)
8) Drew (16-5, 8-2 LAND, 0.762 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS)
----------
Mary_Washington (14-7, 6-4 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
Johns_Hopkins (14-7, 11-3 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.646 ncSOS)
Hood (14-6, 8-4 MACC, 0.700 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS)

South region
1) Randolph-Macon (20-2, 12-1 ODAC, 0.909 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS)
2) Emory (16-4, 6-2 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS)
3) Centre (17-3, 10-1 SAA, 0.850 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
4) Guilford (16-5, 10-2 ODAC, 0.762 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS)
5) Lynchburg (17-5, 8-5 ODAC, 0.773 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS)
6) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.773 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS)
7) Emory_and_Henry (15-6, 8-4 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
8) N.C._Wesleyan (13-3, 11-2 USAC, 0.813 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
----------
Texas-Dallas (16-4, 10-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
Texas_Lutheran (14-5, 9-1 SCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
Louisiana_College (15-5, 8-4 ASC, 0.750 WP, 0.506 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS)

Great Lakes region
1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS)
2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS)
4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS)
5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
6) La_Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
7) Mount_Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.412 ncSOS)
8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS)
9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)
----------
Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
St._Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
Penn_State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.389 ncSOS)

Central region
1) Augustana (20-2, 12-1 CCIW, 0.909 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
2) UW-Oshkosh (19-1, 9-0 WIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.466 ncSOS)
3) UW-La_Crosse (15-6, 8-2 WIAC, 0.714 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
4) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, 0.857 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.442 ncSOS)
5) UW-Whitewater (14-6, 3-6 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.562 SOS, 0.515 ncSOS)
6) UW-Stevens_Point (14-6, 6-4 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.583 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
7) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.727 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
8) Washington_U. (14-6, 7-2 UAA, 0.700 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
----------
Chicago (13-7, 6-3 UAA, 0.650 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
St._Norbert (15-6, 12-1 MWC, 0.714 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS)
Webster (15-4, 11-2 SLIAC, 0.789 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.528 ncSOS)

West region
1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (20-1, 11-1 ARC, 0.952 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS)
2) Whitman (20-1, 12-0 NWC, 0.952 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0.572 ncSOS)
3) St._Thomas (19-1, 15-0 MIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS)
4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.773 WP, 0.598 SOS, 0.575 ncSOS)
5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.944 WP, 0.490 SOS, 0.533 ncSOS)
6) St._John's (16-4, 12-3 MIAC, 0.800 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
7) Whitworth (17-4, 9-3 NWC, 0.810 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.493 ncSOS)
8) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS)
----------
Augsburg (14-5, 11-4 MIAC, 0.737 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (11-5, 8-2 SCIAC, 0.688 WP, 0.519 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS)
Bethany_Lutheran (16-6, 11-2 UMAC, 0.727 WP, 0.465 SOS, 0.480 ncSOS)

Just playing with the Great Lakes numbers...I would flip Wooster ahead of Capital and La Roche ahead of Wittenberg.

1. Wooster (better record, better SOS, better ncSOS)
2. Capital
3. Etta
4. Wabash
5. La Roche (I think the better WP and effort they put in to the ncSOS will give them enough to leap frog Witt for Week 1)
6. Witt

Should be interesting.

[KnightSlappy]

I have a problem with using NCSOS (without NC WP).

Here's La Roche's non-conference games with opponent's adjusted D3 record.

at Marietta (17-3) -- L
vs. Wesley (9-9) -- W
vs. Carnegie Mellon (9-10) -- W
at Hiram (9-10) -- W
at Hope (8-8) -- L
vs. Calvin (at Hope) (7-9) -- W
vs. John Carroll (9-10) -- W

I mean, that's maybe fine? A .714 WP (5-2) against a .558 NCSOS. None of the opponents were particularly impressive except Marietta, and that was a loss. They were 1-2 on the road and 3-0 at home. Does that really boost their standard resume of .905/.507? (I know RPI is not a thing, but that's a .597 NC RPI and a .607 total RPI)

Aside: that's a schedule that looks really really good when you first make it and then it just so happens that Hope, Calvin, and John Carroll are all in a down cycle, which does stink.

[fantastic50]

Great post.  I think this highlights one of the issues with the OWP/OOWP measure of SOS.  It treats a pair of games against 13-13 teams the same as playing a 25-1 team and a 1-25 team, assuming that all opponents have equally difficult slates.  From the perspective a bubble team, those two schedules are vastly different.  Something like CFB's "strength of record" captures this, but SOS does not. 

I agree that in La Roche's case, the actual SOS is far lower than what would have been anticipated when the schedule was made.  Clearly, they wanted to challenge themselves against some of the best in the region, but (aside from Marietta, where they lost by four on opening night), it didn't turn out that way.  I don't think that the criteria give the committee any room to consider "scheduling intent" in such situations, nor would it necessarily be fair to do so, but that does stink for the Redhawks.

Arcadia and Centre are in similar situations, with a solid non-conference SOS, but possibly no resulting wins over regionally-ranked opponents.

[SaintPaulite]

Great post.  I think this highlights one of the issues with the OWP/OOWP measure of SOS.  It treats a pair of games against 13-13 teams the same as playing a 25-1 team and a 1-25 team, assuming that all opponents have equally difficult slates.  From the perspective a bubble team, those two schedules are vastly different.  Something like CFB's "strength of record" captures this, but SOS does not. 

I agree that in La Roche's case, the actual SOS is far lower than what would have been anticipated when the schedule was made.  Clearly, they wanted to challenge themselves against some of the best in the region, but (aside from Marietta, where they lost by four on opening night), it didn't turn out that way.  I don't think that the criteria give the committee any room to consider "scheduling intent" in such situations, nor would it necessarily be fair to do so, but that does stink for the Redhawks.

Arcadia and Centre are in similar situations, with a solid non-conference SOS, but possibly no resulting wins over regionally-ranked opponents.

I think this speaks to the need to schedule the best you can, especially if you're in a weak conference. Replace Carnegie Mellon and Hiram with...I dunno, Mount Union and St. Vincent, and this looks a lot different.

But I'm interested in your point about how two very different schedules can have the same SOS. SOS is effectively an average, right? So the way to combat this would be to have a weighted SOS, but weighted on what? I think D1 has traditionally tried to combat this with RPI buckets for top 25, 26-50, 50-100, 100-200 and 200+, or something like that. To do that we'd have to agree on what a good neutral ranking, or ensemble of, is. Basically you end up only considering games outside the top 100 if they're losses, because you expect a tournament caliber team to beat teams outside the top 100.

The idea of regional ranking as a criteria when your Pool C is national has never made any sense, especially when you have a different number of teams in each region. Of course the northeastern schools are going to have more regionally ranked games...they regionally rank more teams, whether the region strength actually warrants it or not.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Couple of questions: How do you mean by "weighted SOS?" I ask because the men's SOS is weighted based on whether games were on the road or at home (the women do not use that weighted SOS; I think a small percentage of DIII sports use the weighted SOS). If that isn't what you are referring to, are you indicating that the weight is based on how highly ranked a team is by chance?

As for the Pool C conversation and vRRO, I am not one to buy into the fact that the Northeastern schools just automatically play more regionally ranked teams because they have more slots. Each slot in each region is based on the same ratio (1:9 something? I always forget which ratio is which). So there are more NE slots because there are so many more schools. I will grant that the NESCAC schools DO have more vRRO data usually, but that's in part because of their "unique" situation in my opinion. First off, the NESCAC has teams that seem to be better in general and thus they are ranked more often creating more conference-based vRRO data. And because they play less games in-conference and have to play more out-of-conference opponents, their vRRO has the opportunity to be at a higher number, though not always.

If you looked at other Northeast teams in "normal" scheduled conferences, I don't think their vRRO numbers are any higher than anywhere else in the country. I think the NESCAC situation is because of the opportunity to play more teams no matter where they are located rather than just that the Northeast has more teams in it. When the ratio is the same, it doesn't mean more vRRO teams for schools. Not all those who are ranked are able to play all the schools who want to play them.

I remember a few years ago when the MAC Commonwealth was featuring teams with 8-12 games against ranked opponents. The Mid-Atlantic hasn't always had a large number of slots, but because the Commonwealth had a number of good teams coupled with smart scheduling from those teams, there was more vRRO opportunities.

[SaintPaulite]

Couple of questions: How do you mean by "weighted SOS?" I ask because the men's SOS is weighted based on whether games were on the road or at home (the women do not use that weighted SOS; I think a small percentage of DIII sports use the weighted SOS). If that isn't what you are referring to, are you indicating that the weight is based on how highly ranked a team is by chance?

As for the Pool C conversation and vRRO, I am not one to buy into the fact that the Northeastern schools just automatically play more regionally ranked teams because they have more slots. Each slot in each region is based on the same ratio (1:9 something? I always forget which ratio is which). So there are more NE slots because there are so many more schools. I will grant that the NESCAC schools DO have more vRRO data usually, but that's in part because of their "unique" situation in my opinion. First off, the NESCAC has teams that seem to be better in general and thus they are ranked more often creating more conference-based vRRO data. And because they play less games in-conference and have to play more out-of-conference opponents, their vRRO has the opportunity to be at a higher number, though not always.

If you looked at other Northeast teams in "normal" scheduled conferences, I don't think their vRRO numbers are any higher than anywhere else in the country. I think the NESCAC situation is because of the opportunity to play more teams no matter where they are located rather than just that the Northeast has more teams in it. When the ratio is the same, it doesn't mean more vRRO teams for schools. Not all those who are ranked are able to play all the schools who want to play them.

I remember a few years ago when the MAC Commonwealth was featuring teams with 8-12 games against ranked opponents. The Mid-Atlantic hasn't always had a large number of slots, but because the Commonwealth had a number of good teams coupled with smart scheduling from those teams, there was more vRRO opportunities.

So wait, are you talking to everyone or responding to me? Rhetorical.

11 > 8. That's pretty simple. No one thinks the Northeast is 38% better than any of the other regions. So by definition, if you have more teams ranked in your region, there's a better chance that you played a regionally ranked team. One could counteract this by just looking at the top 8 in the regional rankings, but then that causes another problem -- all the regions aren't equal in talent either. I feel pretty sure that you could take the odd team out in some regions and kick the tail of some regionally ranked teams.

Weighted would be giving more...well...weight, to better teams and less weight to having scheduled a lot of average or slightly above average teams. Like I said, in D1 basically any wins outside the top 100 are basically a neutral result.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

When the committee looks at who a team plays in their vRRO data, they do give it a thought as to where the teams are ranked and how they are perceived in the criteria. So if a team has a bunch of "bottom" ranked teams on a ranking, they won't get as much "credit" as a team who has played, say, all their games against the top half of those ranked in any region. It gets more complex than that, like wins and losses and such, but the committee isn't just giving the vRRO data and playing a ranked team as being flat equal.

I don't remember where I gave the example, but if a team is 2-2 but played the bottom half of regionally ranked teams and a team that is 3-5 and played a majority of those against opponents in the upper half of the rankings, over history the 3-5 team is going to probably win that conversation.

[wally_wabash]

Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity.

NESCAC teams have arguably taken an extra bid or two. That certainly has been an argument. However, with the change to the SOS/WL% tool (removal), I am not sure how that will play out this year.

[wally_wabash]

Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity.

NESCAC teams have arguably taken an extra bid or two. That certainly has been an argument. However, with the change to the SOS/WL% tool (removal), I am not sure how that will play out this year.

But that's more to do with the NESCAC's unique league schedule than their geography, yes?