Pool C

[Titan Q]

Why not just scrap RRO in favor of record vs the top 50 or 100 or whatever?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Biggest takeaway for me on the Sam Atkinson Hoopsville interview...

The national committee has access to a Top 100 ranking of some sort from the NCAA, and uses this quite a bit it sounds like.  Sam referred a few times to record vs the top 50 and top 100 (I think when talking about UW-La Crosse and Ramapo).

Seems like this should be mentioned in the primary criteria.  It's the first time I have heard of this - was kind of a big surprise to me.  (It's very possible I have just missed this somewhere along the way.)

I like the concept, by the way.  His point was that RRO from region to region is different...so looking at record vs top 50 and top 100 helps a lot.  Makes sense to me...I just think we should know what that ranking is.

I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Biggest takeaway for me on the Sam Atkinson Hoopsville interview...

The national committee has access to a Top 100 ranking of some sort from the NCAA, and uses this quite a bit it sounds like.  Sam referred a few times to record vs the top 50 and top 100 (I think when talking about UW-La Crosse and Ramapo).

Seems like this should be mentioned in the primary criteria.  It's the first time I have heard of this - was kind of a big surprise to me.  (It's very possible I have just missed this somewhere along the way.)

I like the concept, by the way.  His point was that RRO from region to region is different...so looking at record vs top 50 and top 100 helps a lot.  Makes sense to me...I just think we should know what that ranking is.

Actually not the first time a committee chair has mentioned this. We've had this mentioned a few times. The toughest part I can't nail down is what the number is based on ... that I need to dig further into.

BTW - I did go looking where I think Sam was talking ... and didn't find it. Something I will be working on.

[ronk]

Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.

Well, whether it's SOS or vRRO that they're leaning towards, or even if it's both, they're prioritizing them over WP ... which is my point. At some point the committee has to pick a lane and stay in it in terms of which criterion trumps another criterion in a given comparison.

Amen! That's been my point for a few days(years).

[Rofrog]

Dave you didnt even want to put Ramapo  in last night!What changed today

[Titan Q]

I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

[Greek Tragedy]

Final regional rankings...

https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.

This committee seems to be even more zealously committed to SOS being the primariest of the primary criteria than the VandeStreek committee was.

Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

We can't complain, that's for sure. The Central had more Pool C selections than any other region, even the Northeast.

Well, as many, at least.

I think the Central had Augie, Oshkosh, Wheaton and La Crosse.

The NE had Hamilton, Williams, MIT and Middlebury.

[Greek Tragedy]

Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?

Just trying to figure out the numbers here and the significance of Platteville jumping in. If Platteville's results count, then Oshkosh's numbers are off as their vRRO is only 3-3 and should have at least 8 with 2 v PL, 2 v LC and 3 v SP, plus the loss v Wheaton, unless it's included in the secret 5th regional ranking?

[fantastic50]

I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

For what it's worth, here are records vs my top 50 & top 100 (of course, the NCAA would have different lists, but this should get us close).

Bubble teams
Ramapo 2-3, 6-5
UWL 8-4, 12-6
---
La Roche 0-1, 3-2
Centre 1-1, 3-4
Mt U 3-4, 8-5
E Conn 1-4, 2-5
UMW 3-5, 5-7
Whitworth 0-4, 5-4
W&L 2-2, 4-6
Gordon 1-2, 3-3

Great Lakes
1 Witt 5-3, 6-3
2 Etta 5-3, 9-5
3 Woo 3-4, 4-4
4 Cap 5-3, 8-6
5 BW 3-6, 8-8
6 Mount 3-4, 8-5
7 Wilm 5-6, 6-7
8 Wab 2-3, 2-4
9 LRC 0-1, 3-2

Central
1 Augie 8-3, 11-3
2 NCC 5-3, 8-3
3 UWO 7-3, 12-3
4 Wheaton 5-4, 8-6
5 UWP 7-7, 11-9
6 UWL 8-4, 12-6
7 UWSP 4-9, 9-9
8 IWU 2-8, 5-9

I'm fine with vs top 50 & vs top 100 going into the criteria, but it appears that these (directly or indirectly) had a big impact only on the final rankings, and not prior weeks.

[kiko]

I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

[Veni Vidi Vici]

Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

I agree with this sentiment from a broad perspective, but...

Forgive me if I'm not seeing this (I am newly encapsulating myself in the D3 tournament process). 

• A team who is attempting to strengthen their SOS

vs

• A team that is trying to strengthen their vs. top 50/ vs. top 100

Are these different?  Since you really don't know how the teams are going to shake out at the end of the day, what you are really doing in both instances is scheduling as many quality opponents as you can.

[AO]

[q
Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

Don't forget about the broken home/away multiplier.  If you can't find enough great teams to schedule, make sure you only schedule the weak teams for home games.  Playing at Alma is a SOS killer.  IWU probably doesn't have to worry getting enough top 50 or 100 wins in the non-conference season since they play in the CCIW so they should schedule easier SoS boosting games against .600+ teams from bad conferences.

[ronk]

I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

Yes, the selections are to be made with the published criteria. Using something else(record vs top 50/100) violates their mandate - no gray areas here.

[Titan Q]

Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?

No.  The final regional rankings posted here are the final ones they used for the selection/seeding/bracketing processes.

[KnightSlappy]

[q
Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

Don't forget about the broken home/away multiplier.  If you can't find enough great teams to schedule, make sure you only schedule the weak teams for home games.  Playing at Alma is a SOS killer.  IWU probably doesn't have to worry getting enough top 50 or 100 wins in the non-conference season since they play in the CCIW so they should schedule easier SoS boosting games against .600+ teams from bad conferences.

Right. I failed to continue to make a big deal about this this season, but THE SOS AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT DO WHAT THE NCAA THINKS IT DOES. That is to say, the home/away multiplier doesn't so much alter how "difficult" a game looks on the schedule, it alters how much "space" it takes up.

Think of building a schedule like packing the station wagon for a family trip. Each game is a suitcase, and the final SOS is how much total mass you end up packing in your trunk.

The way the multiplier is currently constructed, an AWAY game means you're using a large suitcase (1.25 multiplier). It doesn't speak to how much mass you've put in it, but it's going to take up more space than a home game, which is a small suitcase (0.75 multiplier). The mass inside the suitcase is still only determined by the opponent's record (and their opponents' record, i.e. OWP and OOWP).

This *sort of* makes sense when you're talking about quality opponents. Playing a good opponent on the road is liking packing a large suitcase and filling it with bricks. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk with solid, heavy objects. It should have a larger impact on your overall schedule strength. Playing them at home is like packing bricks in a smaller suitcase -- it's still quality mass, but it's not going to play as big of a role once all of the other suitcases are packed in.

But this breaks down tremendously when viewing poor opponents. If you play an away game against a poor opponent you're packing a large suitcase and filling it with feathers. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk yet adds little to nothing in terms of how much stuff you're actually packing. You'd rather play that poor team at home -- sticking those feathers in a small suitcase which leaves you plenty of room for heavier suitcases.

What this means in the end is that teams should do everything they can to avoid scheduling their weaker opponents on the road as it will drag their SOS down more than playing the same team at home. THIS IS BONKERS.