Pool C

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.

I'm not sure what Gordon meant by "dry run" because I have not asked them. There are mock rankings done the previous week none of us will ever see, so this is the second go at ranking for the RACs and national committee in the Week 1 rankings.

My point about the Week 1 rankings not meaning anything is about the vRRO data. That is always what I am talking about when it comes down to this. We have had many scenarios in the past that Week 1 has had more of an impact, including the "once ranked, always ranked" day(s). That impact has changed. However, we still get questions (probably based on confusion) as to why either the vRRO data isn't available, wasn't used (ignored), or other confusion. We point out that the first week's rankings doesn't have that data. And with the advent a few years ago of "the last two weeks" and a misunderstanding of how the "final rankings" work out, I've gotten to saying that the first week's rankings vRRO data won't end up meaning much in the end.

That is all I am talking about. Week 1 doesn't matter when it comes to vRRO once we get past Week 2 (or there abouts). I do not ever say Week 1's rankings don't mean anything at all. I have always maintained that it gives us a barometer and an understanding of how the committee is ranking teams that will be useful moving forward. It gives us a chance to possibly understand how the criteria is being used/balanced, but again it is tough to lean on Week 1 when it doesn't use vRRO which is why I put more stock in reading the tea leaves in Week 2's rankings.

What Gordon has found is actually a great talking point. I have always thought for a long time that if a team is not at least ranked in Week 1, the chances of them being an at-large selection are pretty slim. There are very few and far between instances where a team has come out of the weeds to be a serious at-large contender. Week 1 at least informs people of who is at least in play. Gordon was able to show that at least in three years of data.

What Gordon has found and what I have stated about Week 1 are not the same thing nor the same argument.

I will say that I think this year is going to be a change of course and what we end up with selections based on rankings and such may be different. We aren't going to really know until the dust settles on February 25, but not being ranked in Week 1 could be an interesting observation now - I am just not sure how it plays out this season. Also, we have had situations where teams not officially ranked on regional rankings have either been selected as at-large teams (women, not men I believe) or at least gotten to the table. I do wonder how that plays into the Week 1 rankings per being an at-large team scenario. I also would love to see what the trend has been further back than three years, but Gordon doesn't have an endless amount of time to pour into these things. I'm blown away he did three years!

[SaintPaulite]

You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.

I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.

I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.

I'm sorry ... since when do you decide what I mean by what I say?

I have told you what I have said and what I mean. If you want to keep grinding away on your axe, go for it ... but it is getting a bit old. You are simply looking for something to argue with me or you are trying to find ways to either discredit me or push alternate realities.

I have told you what I have said, what I mean, and how I have used my words. You are the only one, it appears, who doesn't understand it. I promise you, if I said something that was inaccurate, I would be hearing about the mistake from people who mean a lot more in this whole thing than you do. I talk to them constantly. They listen to the show constantly. If they seem to grasp what I'm saying with no issues ... what makes you the high-and-mighty arbitrator of these things?

You know what ... don't answer that last one. Consider it rhetorical. I am not interested in your thoughts on the matter.

[SaintPaulite]

You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.

I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.

I'm sorry ... since when do you decide what I mean by what I say?

Clearly I don't, but I certainly should be able to! That's the point of communicating, so that the person you're talking to knows what you mean, by what you say!

Wow that you ask that question really just says everything. I'm glad I already had a headache earlier that I've remedied, or I'd surely have been given one now.

[kiko]

I have told you what I have said, what I mean, and how I have used my words. You are the only one, it appears, who doesn't understand it.

Actually, no, he's not.  Because what you have said on this topic and what you are saying you meant are not exactly the same thing.  That's fine -- every one of us has moments when we are unintentionally vague in what we say or write.  But when there is a disconnect, that is on you, not on the reader/listener.

And, man, you have a really thin skin.  It's actually okay if someone has an opinion that differs from yours.

[NEPAFAN]

Yes, sometimes I think Dave would be better off letting some of these comments go. You can't respond to every comment on the internet.

[fantastic50]

On the sub-.700 WP issue, here is the recent history.

Teams that got a Pool C berth despite a WP of less than .700...
'18 Springfield (18-8) .692 WP/.558 SOS/4-2 vRRO
'18 North Central (18-8) .692/.554/4-5
'17 Keene St (19-9) .679/.578/1-3
'17 UW-Oshkosh (17-10) .630/.602/5-7
'14 Emory (17-8) .680/.602/4-5

Candidate teams that did not get in...
'18 RMC (18-8) .692 WP/.546 SOS/3-3 vRRO
'18 Amherst (17-8) .680/.570/4-6
'17 UW-EC (17-8) .680/.572/3-3
'17 Bowdoin (18-8) .692/.571/1-6
'15 NCC (16-8) .667/.587/3-6
'15 Rutgers-Newark '15 (18-9) .667/.572/1-6

[Pat Coleman]

For what it's worth, I never thought .700 was the floor, but .667.

[fantastic50]

Agreed, yellow light below .700, and red light below .667

[ronk]

Amherst
Christopher Newport
Hamilton
LaRoche
Loras
Marietta
Oswego State
Plattsburgh St
Randolph-Macon
Rochester
Rowan
St. John's
St. Thomas
Scranton
Wabash
Whitworth
Williams
Wittenberg
Wooster
York(PA)

[Greek Tragedy]

Amherst
Christopher Newport
Hamilton
LaRoche
Loras
Marietta
Oswego State
Plattsburgh St
Randolph-Macon
Rochester
Rowan
St. John's
St. Thomas
Scranton
Wabash
Whitworth
Williams
Wittenberg
Wooster
York(PA)

Wrong board, ronk.

[GoPerry]

Agreed, yellow light below .700, and red light below .667

Yeah, Wheaton is dangerously hovering around that .70%.  So they have to win their last reg season game tomorrow vs Millikin.

If they do, I've been also thinking that perhaps it's advantageous that Wheaton, as #3 seed in the CCIW tourney, gets to play a quarterfinal game at home against the #6(provided they win it).  It gives them an opportunity for an additional W before playing NCC the #2 seed on a neutral court.  If they lose that semi final game then they've gone 1-1, as opposed to 0-1 under last year's format, which doesn't hurt the win % as much. Plus they have a chance to go 2-1.  I'm not sure it's that big a deal or not.  But since another loss is presumed, I think this helps them stay above the .700, as long as they beat Millikin tomorrow (not a given) and win that quarterfinal game of course.

NCC as #2 seed on the other hand gets the bye and will either go 0-1 or 1-1 or get the AQ.  But then again their problem is with SOS, not Win% I guess.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Oshkosh is the only team to get in below .667 - and they've pretty much said that won't happen in the future.  For those sub .700 teams, you really have to have a power-conference SOS, like .550 or above.

[SaintPaulite]

So the snow has given me some free time today (as long as no one tells my boss haha)...

I thought it would be interesting to take this list of Matt and Drew's work that Titan Q put together, and build out some of the results behind it, even beyond the record vRRO. The reason is because I think for some teams, the record is a little or a lot misleading. And I think, based on what Sam said on the marathon (which as much as Dave and I have squabbled, that was a great interview), the committee will be digging well beyond the top line numbers.

I didn't want the quote box around everything, but I don't want to pretend like the lists themselves are my work. I'm just making the assumption that this is the Pool C ... pool, and bubble list, based on *their* work, not mine.

My other assumption is that these are most of the games that matter in the season for selection. Other losses might matter, in the negative.
------
() - team that IMO is likely to leave the regional rankings this week
(*) - team that IMO is likely to join the regional rankings this week
Open to suggestions, my knowledge is definitely not unlimited here.

Willing to edit as warranted.
EDIT -- edit was warranted.


Pool Cs they agree on (15)
Williams (19-5) - W: Yeshiva, (Wesleyan 2x), Montclair
               L: Amherst 2x, Middlebury, Hamilton
Marietta (18-5) - W: LaRoche, Wittenberg, (BW 2x), Wilmington, Mount Union
              L: Capital 2x, Mount Union, Wilmington
Loras (18-5) - W: Augustana, (Wartburg), (Augsburg*), Neb Wes,
                     L: (Whitewater), (Wartburg)
Middlebury (18-6) - W: Williams, Hamilton
                             L: Keene, Plattsburgh, Swarthmore, (Wesleyan), Amherst
Hamilton (20-3) - W: Keene, Williams
                         L: (Wesleyan), Middlebury
Plattsburgh St (19-4) - W: St. Lawrence, Middlebury, Brockport, Cortland,
                                     Oswego
                                 L: Brockport, (Wesleyan), Oswego, Cortland
Rowan (18-6) - W: Ramapo, Salisbury, Keene, Montclair 2x, NJCU
                       L: NJCU, Ramapo
Wheaton (17-7) - W: Oshkosh, (IWU* 2x), N Cent
                          L: Chicago, N Cent, Augustana 2x
Rochester (18-4) - W: (BW), Montclair, Nazareth, Emory, Chicago
                           L: Chicago
St. John's (19-4) - W: (Whitewater), LaCrosse, (Augsburg* 2x)
                           L: St. Thomas
Salisbury (17-6) - W: Arcadia, Hopkins, Nichols, Mary W
                           L: Rowan, Mary W, York 2x, CNU
York (Pa.) (17-6) - W: Hopkins, Salisbury 2x, CNU
                            L: Swarthmore, CNU, Mary W, Scranton
Keene State (17-7) - W: Middlebury
                              L: MIT, Rowan, Hamilton, ECSU
Whitworth (19-4) - W: Hopkins, Em&Henry
                            L: UT-Dallas, Whitman 2x
Wesleyan (16-8) - W: Farm.St., Middlebury, Hamilton, Amherst
                           L: Nichols, ECSU, Williams 2x, Amherst

Drew Has (5)
Gordon (21-2) - W: Nichols
                        L: Ramapo
Wittenberg (18-5) - W: Capital, Wilmington, Wooster
                             L: Marietta, Wabash, Wooster
Wabash (19-4) - W: Wooster, Wittenberg
                        L: Wilmington, Wooster
Scranton (19-4) - W: St. Lawrence, York
                          L: none(?)
Mary Hardin-Baylor (18-5) - W: UT-Dallas
                                         L: none?

Matt Has (5)
UW-Stevens Point (15-7) - W: (IWU*), (Whitewater)
                                      L: Augustana, St. Thomas, Oshkosh 2x, LaCrosse 2x,
                                         (Whitewater)   
UW-La Crosse (15-8) - W: (Wartburg), (Whitewater 2x), Point 2x,
                                 L: St. John's, Oshkosh
Ill. Wesleyan (15-8) - W: Chicago, N Central
                                L: Wheaton 2x, Augustana 2x, Whitman, Point, N Cent,
Colby (17-7) - W: Amherst, Hamilton, (Wesleyan)
                      L: Gordon, Williams, Middlebury
Wartburg (15-8) - W: Loras
                           L: Loras, LaCrosse, Neb Wes 2x

There's clearly a lot to glean here, but one thing stands out to me: Ryan's call of Wittenberg as a team to watch is a very good one. Wins over possibly the top 2 teams in the GL.

Other thought question in my mind that affects several of the "agreed upon" Pool Cs is whether several wins over middling regionally ranked teams matters more than 1 or 2 big wins over a team ranked in the top 2 (or something) in the region. Looking at you, Williams, Marietta, Hamilton.

[duckfan41]

SaintPaulite

There's a lot of info in there nicely done! I'm a Wheaton guy, and I noticed that you had Wheaton beating and losing to IWU, but Wheaton swept the regular season series with them.