Pool C

[SaintPaulite]

Sigh...the nation's longest winning streak comes to an end with Augsburg beating St. Thomas.

Deserved, on balance, and to be honest Augsburg deserves to be regionally ranked and in Pool C consideration. Lot of talent in that lineup.

Going to be a long conversation among the committee about the bottom half of the West rankings, I suspect.

Serious question, does a team have to be regionally ranked to get a Pool C bid? Seems clear to me that St. John's, Whitworth and Augsburg deserve to be ranked until proven otherwise, and if the score in Wartburg holds up, they do as well. But no one deserves to fall out.

[ronk]

 My understanding is that there are multiple teams ranked in each region over and above those that are publicly released such that they are available for the pool C selection process, if warranted.

[Pat Coleman]

It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

LOL at Dave-splain. But in this case, this isn't something that Dave promulgates in a vacuum -- the committee feels the same way.

Here's the thing -- regardless of whether RROs are included in the first ranking, the general idea is sound. If you're not good enough to make the top 8, 9, 11, whatever in your region at the end of January, you aren't likely to be one of the top two or three at-large candidates in your region come selection time. (And, even then, it's not impossible.)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

My point about the first week's don't mean much is a comment about it at the end ... considering the data is no longer used after Week 2 (i.e. "once ranked always ranked; the Week is too far removed for the vRRO data at the end), then the week doesn't mean much for this season.

I didn't say it doesn't mean a damn bit in regards of if you are or are not ranked. I think what Gordon has found in the last three years (just three as of now) fascinating. You certainly want to be ranked. However, you are confusing my comments about vRRO data and how Week 1 impacts that data and the rest of the rankings to what Gordon has found. I find those things separate and different.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The 2018-19 season has entered it's final weeks. For some teams, their final games are this week. For others, they are fighting to hopefully still be playing next week and maybe beyond. While others hope their season stretches into March, as long as they take care of business this week and next.

The season can really all boil down to a couple of games. While November is just as important, February games seem to have a different feel to them. Regional Rankings coming out gives everyone a new sense of where they stand if they have postseason plans. Conference tournaments getting ready to start also gives gives teams more incentive to lock up seedings or berths.

As a result: A lot of craziness and games to watch on any given night.

On Sunday's Hoopsville, Dave and guests try and take the temperature of these final few weeks. Who has turned heads, who seems to be stumbling down the stretch, and who should we be talking about while we've been distracted by the usual suspects.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show starts at 7:00 p.m. ET right here: http://bit.ly/2GkK7C6 (or video Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

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 below.

Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Ashlee Rogers, Marymount women's coach
- Kristina Baugh, Mass-Boston women's coach
- Jarred Samples, UDallas men's coach and national committee member (NABC Coach's Corner)
- John Thompson, North Carolina Wesleyan men's coach
- Bob Quillman, IWUHoops.com (Central Region)
- Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com Senior Writer (Top 25 Double-Take with Quillman)

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

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know.

Not related to the above:
27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.

Not really commenting on much here, but it raises the question, why not move a conference from the overcrowded NE to the empty East? They seem geographically close enough that this wouldn't be too much of move. The NE has the most at large bids because they have the most teams, and I understand the percentage of teams the NE has and the percentage of at-large bids the NE does not lineup... but would this help things at all?

This was tried when the regions were realligned a number of years ago ... and it proved to be impossible. If you look at how the conferences are made up geographically, you will see they have strong roots in the Northeast. You would have to removed a conference to the East or Atlantic that still has teams located in Boston and deeper into New England. It just doesn't really work.

So based on the statement I've been seeing, "they've removed the SOS/.700 WP% comparison" does this mean the .700 WP% trumps the SOS every time? I guess I don't really understand that statement that they are removing that comparison. 

Not sure where the .700% got into this mix when describing the metric used by the committee over the years regarding SOS and WL%.

The NCAA told the MBB national committee to remove the SOS to WL% tool they were using several years. The tool that would adjust for every .030 different in the SOS the WL numbers by two games (Ws or Ls depending on the situation). That sometimes went further to .060 and four games.

That has nothing to do with .700%. That number has originated for quite some time as what the national committee has hinted at as being somewhat of a Mendoza Line when it comes to at-large teams. If a team was below .700%, the thinking was they weren't going to get an at-large bid no matter what the other criteria said. UW-Oshkosh was an exception a number of years ago, controversially, because their SOS was so ridiculously high despite a 17-10 (.629%) record. Using that tool described above, UW-Oshkosh got their WL numbers to come back to a far more "normal" level and got selected to the tournament.

[Titan Q]

We have two great mathematical looks at Pool C...

* Drew Pasteur (aka Fantastic50) - http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html

* Matt Snyder (aka KnightSlappy) - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

Pool Cs they agree on (15)
Williams
Marietta
Loras
Middlebury
Hamilton
Plattsburgh State
Rowan
Wheaton
Rochester
St. John's
Salisbury
York (Pa.)
Keene State
Whitworth
Wesleyan

Drew Has (5)
Gordon (9)
Wittenberg (13)
Wabash (15)
Scranton (17)
Mary Hardin-Baylor (18)

Matt Has (5)
UW-Stevens Point (6)
UW-La Crosse (14)
Illinois Wesleyan (16)
Colby (19)
Wartburg (20)

[augie77]

I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.

Thanks augie77!

Despite the vote of confidence from Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), I would still be very surprised it if happened.  But with BOTH analysts now having Wheaton safely in, I have figured out how the CCIW can get three teams in:  the winner of Elmhurst/IWU (which I obviously hope is IWU ) upsets Augie on their home court in the semis, then downs Wheaton in the final.

I'm not sure whether Wheaton would still be in with a semi-final loss, but reaching the final should solidify their position.  Augie would obviously still make it with a loss in the semis, though some poor 'bubble' team would be quite unhappy.

Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

[fantastic50]

Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.

[ronk]

Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.

Hopefully, Scranton will be 1 of those bubble busters, instead.

[Titan Q]

Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.

Agree.  5 is always my assumed "bubble bursters" aka "bid thieves" number.

So whatever the right order is currently, 1-20, of Pool Cs...if you are 16-20 you are in huge trouble.

[SaintPaulite]

It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

LOL at Dave-splain. But in this case, this isn't something that Dave promulgates in a vacuum -- the committee feels the same way.

Here's the thing -- regardless of whether RROs are included in the first ranking, the general idea is sound. If you're not good enough to make the top 8, 9, 11, whatever in your region at the end of January, you aren't likely to be one of the top two or three at-large candidates in your region come selection time. (And, even then, it's not impossible.)

Promulgates? Please, I'm a numbers guy. Promulgates sounds like something you might do when prom night didn't go as you planned.

Basically, and if Gordon wanted to expand on this I would welcome it, my thinking is top 4 in the first RRs (with probably more meaning by ranking, 1 is more meaningful than 2, etc to 4) is pretty meaningful, and anything below that barely is. I think that would be somewhat modified by the strength of the region (4th in the Atlantic is not as meaningful as 4th in the Central).

Dry run is basically Gordon quoting Dave, and if it was true would mean that these were sort of just practice. Which they clearly aren't, and if the committee ever suggested that, they were probably wrong about their own process, which happens. I do think Dave has given the impression that the first set of RRs aren't worth analyzing and I think clearly Gordon has shown that they are.

And of course it makes sense that they would have value, I think that's part of the point of what Gordon did.

[Gregory Sager]

Promulgates? Please, I'm a numbers guy. Promulgates sounds like something you might do when prom night didn't go as you planned.

I like the word "promulgates", but this is pretty funny.

[SaintPaulite]

I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.

Thanks augie77!

Despite the vote of confidence from Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), I would still be very surprised it if happened.  But with BOTH analysts now having Wheaton safely in, I have figured out how the CCIW can get three teams in:  the winner of Elmhurst/IWU (which I obviously hope is IWU ) upsets Augie on their home court in the semis, then downs Wheaton in the final.

I'm not sure whether Wheaton would still be in with a semi-final loss, but reaching the final should solidify their position.  Augie would obviously still make it with a loss in the semis, though some poor 'bubble' team would be quite unhappy.

Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

I find it *interesting* that one of them has IWU in, and neither have North Central in. I know NC lost twice. But NC still has a better conference record, and I see the difference in the SOS and that, but when you look at *wins*, I don't see it. Yeah IWU played Whitman and Stevens Point, but they didn't win. In a predictive model, losing to Whitman by two certainly matters. But in NCAA selection criteria, it doesn't.

Obviously, right now NC has a better record against common opponents because they're ahead in a conference with balanced scheduling.

IWU
W: Chicago (edit: may still be ranked after today, didn't see that result), NC
L: Wheaton 2x, Augustana 2x, Whitman, Cheater Point, NC

NC
W: Wheaton, Augustana, IWU
L: Wheaton, Augustana, IWU

If the committee really looks at everything, and not just a distilled number that's an average...they can't have NC much if at all behind IWU.