Pool C

[TheOsprey]

That's just a preference. I can see teams still winning without top players, so I change that position.  LOL

[Titan Q]

That's just a preference. I can see teams still winning without top players, so I change that position.  LOL

Illinois Wesleyan is in the CCIW tourney championship game without 3 starters (3 of their best players).

You never know how things will play out when there are rotation changes.

[TheOsprey]

Ya'll are right. I did see a team win a Superbowl with their backups not too long ago.

[Titan Q]

Through Friday's games...

All possible due to Matt Snyder's great data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

Important note -- some of these teams are done, while some are still alive in conference tournaments.  The teams still alive that end up as Pool C candidates will all lose one more game (meaning winning percentage will go down).

Round 1
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .885/.556/5-3
NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
W - St. Thomas (MIAC): .923/.545/4-2

Round 2
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .885/.556/5-3
NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 3
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 4
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 5
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 6
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 7
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Tufts (NESCAC): .760/.584/4-4
S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 8
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 9
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 10
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 11
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 12
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 13
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Wooster (NCAC): .741/.558/4-3
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 14
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 15
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 16
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 17
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 18
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 19
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew (Land): .769/.529/1-1
NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 20
AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew (Land): .769/.529/1-1
NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
S - Guilford (ODAC): .692/.553/2-4
W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

[Titan Q]

The WIAC is getting 4 teams in (3 Pool C's).  That is a lock as far as I see it.

[D3RetiredHooper]

This seems like a Pool C prediction done if the national committee was all from the Central region LOL!

Also those R v RRO's aren't accurate for some teams (unless you have also went thru and mocked every regional rankings from this week so far). For instance, where are we getting 3 RR wins for La Crosse?

[Titan Q]

This seems like a Pool C prediction done if the national committee was all from the Central region LOL!

Also those R v RRO's aren't accurate for some teams (unless you have also went thru and mocked every regional rankings from this week so far). For instance, where are we getting 3 RR wins for La Crosse?

Just tell me what picks you disagree with and why.  I have 20 rounds of work there with my picks - I made the selections I thought were appropriate for each given round, using the criteria. 

I am just using this data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.  No, I did not go through every team and mock the RRO.  I did for La Crosse as Eau Claire is getting in the Central rankings for sure...and that adds 2 RRO wins to La Crosse.

[Titan Q]

Saturday Bubble Burster Games (a loss means a Pool C bid could/would disappear)

(listed in order of game time)

* Stevens (vs Eastern, 3pm in MACF title game)

* Centre (vs Millsaps, 4pm in SAA semifinals)

* Brockport (vs SUNY Potsdam, 4pm in SUNYAC title game)

* St. Norbert (vs Ripon, 4pm in MWC title game)

* Randolph-Macon (vs Roanoke, 6pm in ODAC semifinals)

* LeTourneau (vs East TX Baptist, 7pm in ASC title game)

* Mount Union (vs John Carroll, 7:30pm in OAC title game)

* Nebraska Wesleyan (vs Coe, 8pm in ARC title game)

* Elmhurst (vs Illinois Wesleyan, 8pm in CCIW title game)

* Whitworth (vs Whitman, 10pm in NWC title game)

[kiko]

Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.

Because the tournament is played at the end of the year. And inevitably, there will be teams that are playing better towards the end of the season and teams that are not playing their best basketball at the end of the season. And if we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, we would want the teams that are playing very well in the tournament. Not saying the first games should totally be discounted, they should still definitely count, but a small multiplier sounds like a good idea to me, in theory. This way the entire body of work is being counted, just with a little more emphasis on the latter part of the season.

Now with this said, I would definitely need a working simulation to see if I actually do agree with it.

Two thoughts:

1. If we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, there wouldn't be a Pool A.  That's clearly not what the membership wants.  They want equal access for all conferences.

2. By de-emphasizing early season games, you are de-emphasizing the part of the schedule that best enables us to compare teams in different conferences and regions.  We are already starved for data points that help us do this -- why would we de-emphasize the most directly applicable dataset that we already have?

[D3RetiredHooper]

I have said a number of times on here that La Crosse is going to have major issues IF Eau Claire doesn't get regionally ranked. That leaves them with a very average resume with zero RR wins and could possibly block Augustana and Eau Claire.

[Greek Tragedy]

In addition, if you de-emphasize earlier games, the willingness to schedule tough non-conference games like CCIW v WIAC, Benedictine v NCC, Eau Claire v Wash U, etc go out the window.

[Smitty Oom]

Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.

Because the tournament is played at the end of the year. And inevitably, there will be teams that are playing better towards the end of the season and teams that are not playing their best basketball at the end of the season. And if we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, we would want the teams that are playing very well in the tournament. Not saying the first games should totally be discounted, they should still definitely count, but a small multiplier sounds like a good idea to me, in theory. This way the entire body of work is being counted, just with a little more emphasis on the latter part of the season.

Now with this said, I would definitely need a working simulation to see if I actually do agree with it.

Two thoughts:

1. If we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, there wouldn't be a Pool A.  That's clearly not what the membership wants.  They want equal access for all conferences.

2. By de-emphasizing early season games, you are de-emphasizing the part of the schedule that best enables us to compare teams in different conferences and regions.  We are already starved for data points that help us do this -- why would we de-emphasize the most directly applicable dataset that we already have?

Point number one, I get what you are saying and I should have been more clear. I was referring to the 21 at large (20 pool C) selections wanting to have the best teams get the invitation. You are right, and I do not want to get rid of pool A.

Point number two, you make a very valid point. The tough thing about it is that anyway you objectively slice it (emphasizing a particular part of schedule or not) there will be a flaw, I think we can all agree on that. Ideally, you could use injuries, recent results in combination with the primary criteria to compare teams in situations that call for it. But as stated previously, that injection of subjectivity really is opening up Pandora's box. I think it's an interesting enough idea, the late season multiplier, but it would not necessarily effect things/teams/situations correctly or in the way it was originally intended too, that's for sure. I think we should probably focus on "fixing" the SOS multiplier first! 

[Titan Q]

I have said a number of times on here that La Crosse is going to have major issues IF Eau Claire doesn't get regionally ranked. That leaves them with a very average resume with zero RR wins and could possibly block Augustana and Eau Claire.

I'm confident Eau Claire is going to get regionally ranked.  The win over Platteville, Central #1, was enormous for their resume.

I cannot see any way they are not in that final Central ranking.

[kiko]

I think we should probably focus on "fixing" the SOS multiplier first! 

1000% agree on this... the current application is inexcusable.

[Greek Tragedy]

York knocks off CNU. CNU just takes York's Pool C spot but gets selected sooner with a better resume than York.