Pool C

[ronk]

Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

This is across the board in all sports.

Needs to change ...

So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

This is across the board in all sports.

Needs to change ...

So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".

But some "regions" shrank as a result ... others got larger. Region 3 is essentially with the East, so is Region 7 the Great Lakes with changes.

And remember, this is not just a basketball decision - it is across the board for all sports. So impacts in other sports that now have more regions than they had in the past (significantly more regions for some) had an impact on rankings as well.

And the increase in the percentage moved from about 62 teams ranked in 2020 ... to 83 ranked now.

[PauldingLightUP]

What is Division Head-to-Head and where is the vRRO category?

P.S.

If TitanQ is accepting questions for Mike Schauer, this is my question.

[KnightSlappy]

What is Division Head-to-Head and where is the vRRO category?

P.S.

If TitanQ is accepting questions for Mike Schauer, this is my question.

My guess is the Division Head-to-Head column is record vs. ranked teams in your region, which isn't a criterion and I would have no idea why it's on a data sheet.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

[Inkblot]

I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

D2 sheets don't generally have a column with that title either.

[Inkblot]

St. Thomas has been removed, and Pacific Lutheran is in at 8th in Region X.

[PauldingLightUP]

I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

Thanks. Typical blunder by NCAA/Turner. DIII deserves better!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

Thanks. Typical blunder by NCAA/Turner. DIII deserves better!

It is too bad there is an issue there ... but we know what it means ... I think we start making mountains out of a lot of molehills and it starts seeming like we complain about anything and everything ... and people start to tune out.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

A couple of notes:

The current data sheets for men's basketball are a little wonky for reasons no one is sure. First off, the vRRO data simply isn't there. The Division Head-to-Head is apparently to reference how the CURRENT ranked teams have done against those who are CURRENTLY ranked in their specific regional rankings. It has no meaning at all for anyone especially understanding rankings right now.

The entire data sheet has other craziness that I discussed with Michael Schauer - he is bringing things up with the liaison and others. I will update when I learn more.

[Inkblot]

The Division Head-to-Head is apparently to reference how the CURRENT ranked teams have done against those who are CURRENTLY ranked in their specific regional rankings. It has no meaning at all for anyone especially understanding rankings right now.

And it's not even complete/accurate in that respect... in Region X, it gives that for Linfield and not Cal Lutheran or Pacific Lutheran.

[Titan Q]

My conversation with Mike Schauer about regional ranking #2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6e1mPneK7s

0:00 Process for ranking #2
4:17 Are we ranking too many teams?
7:45 Evaluating dramatically different resumes
9:45 Impact of teams ranked at bottom of regions
11:28 Buena Vista
13:35 St. Thomas (TX) error
15:48 SOS under .500
17:50 Common opponents & head-to-head
21:20 Quality of RRO wins
22:50 Does committee factor in injuries?
23:25 Results in November vs February
25:09 Top 16 reveal this week
28:00 Bracketing
29:35 Balancing time between nat'l committee and Thunder
31:51 Watching #d3hoops
33:14 Final thoughts

[ronk]

Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

This is across the board in all sports.

Needs to change ...

So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".

But some "regions" shrank as a result ... others got larger. Region 3 is essentially with the East, so is Region 7 the Great Lakes with changes.

And remember, this is not just a basketball decision - it is across the board for all sports. So impacts in other sports that now have more regions than they had in the past (significantly more regions for some) had an impact on rankings as well.

And the increase in the percentage moved from about 62 teams ranked in 2020 ... to 83 ranked now.

Mike Schauer said in Q's interview that the increase in # of teams ranked was due to a D3 membership requirement, so it was not a basketball decision at all.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It's across all sports this year, but I don't know anyone who likes it, so I suspect there will be a change for next year. Even going back to the 15-20% range provides needed flexibility.

[sac]

In Region 7 under the old guidelines of 15% ranked, the committee would look at maybe 10-12 teams thoroughly for their 8 ranking slots, under the 20% for 10 ranking slots they probably had to look at 20-22 teams because there are about 8 teams with similar criteria for the final couple of slots to go with 4 high win %, low SOS teams.

Each region is simply looking at more teams to reach their allotted 20% ranking slots.  That small change has nearly doubled their work.