Pool C

[ronk]

 I wondered if they would do it with each region, not just the Central. So there wouldn't be an advantage to a particular region. It would just be more likely invoked in the Central this season.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

vRRO are only for teams ranked in Week 3 and in the final ranking today.  If they have to go beyond the ranked teams, vRRO still only applies to games against ranked teams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just to get this out there annually.

RRO's are dumb.

carry on.

I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

[ronk]

Just to get this out there annually.

RRO's are dumb.

carry on.

I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).

[D3RetiredHooper]

The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

That was the most telling portion of Dave's interview with Sam last week.  The interpretation of vRRO's and how the committee is viewing them.  Hobart's 3 wins (2 over Ithaca E-8, and Rochester E-4) compared to Benedictine's 3 wins (N Central C-4, St Norbert C-6, and LeTourneau S-4) will probably not be valued the same in the committee's eyes.

Win% and SOS are tangible numbers that are good for comparison but cannot change.  vRRO's allows the committee some variation in terms of how to interpret data.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just to get this out there annually.

RRO's are dumb.

carry on.

I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).

We do that because there's really no other way to do it until we're down to two or three teams.  We'll talk a ton about the details of the vRRO tonight when we do the mock selections, because we'll have actual resumes in front of us.  vRRO is really just shorthand until you're in the thick of selection.

[Titan Q]

Updated with Matt Snyder's morning data update (he didn't have the late WIAC and NWC games in there when I did this earlier).  The significant winning percentage drops are Whitworth and Eau Claire.

But for Whitworth, as I am looking at this, I am projecting Whitman easily gets into the West rankings. This gives Whitworth 1-2 more RRO, which is a big deal. And I am projecting Eau Claire gets into the Central.  So add 0-1.  All the sudden Whitworth moves to 3-6 RRO...and that moves them from not being selected to spot #14.  Those who hate RRO, feel free to jump in here.

Eau Claire's SOS drop moved them quite a bit down for me...to spot #18.

https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

*team has lost and is officially a Pool C candidate

Round 1
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Swarthmore* (CC): .963/.570/10-1
NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

Round 2
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport*(CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

Round 3
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

Round 4
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

Round 5
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

Round 6
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 7
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 8
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 9
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 10
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 11
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 12
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - St. Norbert (MWC): .852/.535/2-2
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 13
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 14
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

Round 15
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 16
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 17
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 18
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
E - SUNY Potsdam* (SUNYAC): .769/.525/4-5
GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 19
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
E - Oswego State* (SUNYAC): .704/.543/4-7
GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

Round 20
AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
E - Oswego State* (SUNYAC): .704/.543/4-7
GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

[Titan Q]

I stayed with Amherst at #20...I think they have better wins than Oswego State.

[Titan Q]

I looked at John Carroll instead of Albion...but I would not have selected either one in the process.

[Pat Coleman]

Just to get this out there annually.

RRO's are dumb.

carry on.

I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).

We do that because there's really no other way to do it until we're down to two or three teams.  We'll talk a ton about the details of the vRRO tonight when we do the mock selections, because we'll have actual resumes in front of us.  vRRO is really just shorthand until you're in the thick of selection.

Ryan is right on here -- I would guess it has been a decade or so since someone on the inside talked more about how vRRO worked and we have taken it and run from there, but indeed, there is no way to condense that down and put it in a chart as above.

Also, the years really run together.

[Smitty Oom]

It's good to know they have been digging deeper on vRRO criteria. I missed the past two episodes of hoopsville so haven't listened to the interview with Sam, sounds like it was enlightening. I'm all for using key wins and losses to help choose the pool C bids, as long it is more nuanced like Ryan was suggesting.

With that said, are you projecting Linfield to stay in the west ranks? Whitman and Linfield being ranked is huge for Whitworth. The rest of the west is really quite weak so they definitely have a chance. LC has 5 nonD3 games though, coupled with a not great SOS it is hard to judge their resume.

[sac]

Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger and sometimes better conferences.


Just an example
Albion played Mt. Union and Marietta out of conference, they'll have 2 RRO's
Wittenberg played no one out out of conference, they'll have 5 RRO's

[Greek Tragedy]

Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger better and sometimes better bigger conferences.


Just an example
Albion played Mt. Union and Marietta out of conference, they'll have 2 RRO's
Wittenberg played Elmira out out of conference, they'll have 6 RRO's

I fixed it for you. 

[Titan Q]

Regarding my 20 round projection above, Matt had some RRO issues in his data - fixed now.

https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

I will update my stuff with the fix later.  Could make a difference as tight as all of this is.  For example, he had Whitworth 1-2...they are actually 2-3 based on last week's ranking. That is enough to make a difference.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Regarding my 20 round projection above, Matt had some RRO issues in his data - fixed now.

https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

I will update my stuff with the fix later.  Could make a difference as tight as all of this is.  For example, he had Whitworth 1-2...they are actually 2-3 based on last week's ranking. That is enough to make a difference.

Well, I think we'll have some interesting discussion towards the end of this selection.  Tune in everyone! Hoopsville starts at 6pm.