Pool C

[fcnews]

Looks like the South region is again setting up for a challenge for the NCAA to place. With Trinity and Texas Dallas at the top of region rankings, who is within 500 miles of either team. Same with West Coast. Probably UPS and winner of SCIAC, No other west coast team to involve.

Any comments?

[pabegg]

Looks like the South region is again setting up for a challenge for the NCAA to place. With Trinity and Texas Dallas at the top of region rankings, who is within 500 miles of either team. Same with West Coast. Probably UPS and winner of SCIAC, No other west coast team to involve.

Any comments?

Whitworth is still in the mix in the NWC for a Pool C. Chapman is still in the mix for a Pool B.

Without Whitworth and Chapman, the setup would seem to be clear. Fly the SCIAC winner and someone else to Texas, and let UPS host a three-team pod with the opening game somewhere in the Chicago/Milwaukee area.

If Chapman makes it, we've got the traditional three-team pod on the West Coast and two teams would have to fly to Texas.

If Whitworth makes it, there's a real mess.

[Ralph Turner]

There is so much balance in the ASC, it is possible for any of the 8 teams to win the tourney.

Let's assume that Trinity TX gets into the tourney.
If UT-Dallas gets a Pool C, then 6 of the other 7 teams are within 500 miles of San Antonio.  (Mississippi College is 596 miles to San Antonio and is even 507 miles to WashStL.  Sul Ross is 506 miles from UTDallas.  SRSU can go to San Antonio, 376 miles.

It is even possible for the University of Dallas to win the Pool A bid from the NEAC in that conference's tourney.  Trinity might host a 3-pod or a 4-pod.

[Greek Tragedy]

IF Trinity hosts a 3-pod, doesn't that mean Team A goes and plays Team B and the winner goes to Trinity?  Or, I guess it's possible for Trinity to host Team A and if they win, host Team B who has a bye?

[pabegg]

IF Trinity hosts a 3-pod, doesn't that mean Team A goes and plays Team B and the winner goes to Trinity?  Or, I guess it's possible for Trinity to host Team A and if they win, host Team B who has a bye?

The three-team pod would likely result from having a 3rd school within 500 miles of Trinity, due to an upset in the ASC or SCAC tournaments.

I believe that soccer has done that second scenario, but not basketball.

[Greek Tragedy]

Back in the 2005 tourney, Trinity hosted Texas Dallas and then hosted Ponoma Pitzer, who had a first round bye, in the 2nd round.  I thought I remembered something like that happening...

[golden_dome]

pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.

[pabegg]

pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.

RPI is the standard 25%-50%-25% mix that D1 uses (or at least they have in the past).

RPI is not part of the official D3 logic, but I've found that it lines up well with the strength of schedule component of the D3 ranking.

[golden_dome]

pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.

RPI is the standard 25%-50%-25% mix that D1 uses (or at least they have in the past).

RPI is not part of the official D3 logic, but I've found that it lines up well with the strength of schedule component of the D3 ranking.

Thanks for the info, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using those percentages considering how close you were last year predicting Pool C's. JMO, but for DIII that is weighted too heavily toward the OWP considering how regional DIII is.

For example, a 20-5 team with OWP of .500 would produce equal RPI numbers to a 15-10 team with .600 OWP as long as the OOWP were the same. I don't think those two teams should be equal. But I guess it depends on how the committee is using the RPI number in relation to the actual win/loss records.

The reason I asked is I'm curious if the committees are looking at a numerical value to rank the teams similiar to how they did with the QOWI, or if there is more room for subjectivity using the different criteria.

[pabegg]

I'm jumping the gun here, with results through 4pm today, including the UAA games. I'll post final numbers, probably in the morning.

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  17   01   02    0.6402 0.5737 0.5439 Worcester Polytech        005  A w C       20-3 20-4
NE  16   02   01    0.6138 0.5123 0.5217 Middlebury                006  A w C       20-2 22-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6085 0.5196 0.5251 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       20-3 22-3
NE  13   04   05    0.6156 0.5505 0.5214 Rhode Island College      014  C 3         21-4 21-4
NE  18   05   04    0.5833 0.4459 0.4830 Elms                      023  B 1         23-1 24-1
NE  14   06   07    0.6116 0.5646 0.5256 Salem State               025  A w C       19-5 20-5
NE  14   07   06    0.5942 0.5161 0.5349 Bridgewater State         032  C 9         17-4 18-6
NE  16   08   08    0.5966 0.5282 0.5474 Amherst                   034  C 10        18-5 20-5
NE  11   09   09    0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 041  A w C       20-4 21-4
NE  16   10   12    0.5952 0.5863 0.5283 Bowdoin                   050  C 19        17-8 17-8
NE  17   11   11    0.5712 0.5094 0.5386 MIT                       052  C 21        16-6 17-8
NE  90   12   13    0.5950 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis                  055  C 24        16-8 16-8
NE  16   13   nr    0.5730 0.5231 0.5375 Williams                  061  C 28        17-7 17-8

EA  21   01   01    0.6407 0.5377 0.5366 Ithaca                    001  A w C       22-1 24-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6087 0.5166 0.5129 Hamilton                  010  C 1         16-2 18-6
EA  24   03   03    0.6103 0.5775 0.5137 St. Lawrence              028  A w C       17-5 19-5
EA  21   04   06    0.5842 0.5718 0.5135 Utica                     062  C 29        17-8 17-8
EA  90   05   05    0.5694 0.5417 0.5349 Rochester                 075              16-8 16-8
EA  23   06   nr    0.5506 0.4950 0.4982 Fredonia State            083              15-6 16-8
EA  21   07   04    0.5713 0.5678 0.5311 Rochester Tech            086              13-8 17-8
EA  61   08   nr    0.5374 0.4809 0.4737 Medaille                  093  A           15-6 19-6

AT  32   01   01    0.6026 0.4971 0.5073 Richard Stockton          009  A w C       20-2 23-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5932 0.4841 0.4845 SUNY-Farmingdale          016  A w C       23-2 23-2
AT  33   03   04    0.5616 0.4377 0.4958 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       037  C 11        21-3 22-3
AT  32   04   06    0.5852 0.5404 0.4980 Montclair State           038  C 12        16-5 20-5
AT  31   05   03    0.5591 0.4407 0.4882 Baruch                    040  A w C       20-3 22-4
AT  32   06   06    0.5748 0.5131 0.5037 William Paterson          042  C 13        20-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5278 0.4106 0.4915 Brooklyn                  085              20-5 21-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5189 0.4618 0.4887 Lehman                    119              16-8 18-8

MA  45   01   01    0.6069 0.5295 0.5350 Franklin and Marshall     022  A w C       20-4 21-4
MA  41   02   02    0.5874 0.4766 0.4963 St. Mary's (Md.)          024  A w C       18-2 21-4
MA  42   03   04    0.5925 0.5368 0.5138 Widener                   035  A w C       18-5 20-5
MA  43   04   05    0.5719 0.4928 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       19-5 20-5
MA  45   05   03    0.5920 0.5546 0.5316 McDaniel                  043  C 14        16-6 18-7
MA  44   06   07    0.5557 0.4536 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             048  A second    19-4 20-5
MA  45   07   11    0.5762 0.5517 0.5345 Gettysburg                066  C 33        16-8 16-8
MA  46   08   08    0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton                  067  B 2         18-6 19-6
MA  41   09   06    0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley                    072  C 38        14-5 16-9
MA  44   10   09    0.5434 0.4682 0.4773 Cabrini                   077              19-6 19-6
MA  46   11   10    0.5353 0.4682 0.4904 Susquehanna               096  B 3         15-6 17-7

SO  53   01   02    0.5916 0.4776 0.5111 Randolph-Macon            018  C 5         18-2 20-5
SO  54   02   03    0.5972 0.5059 0.5132 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       19-3 22-3
SO  51   03   01    0.5992 0.5290 0.5126 Texas-Dallas              027  A w C       19-4 21-4
SO  54   04   04    0.6019 0.5565 0.5015 Centre                    029  C 7         16-4 20-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5868 0.4999 0.5140 Guilford                  030  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  54   06   08    0.5700 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw                    047  C 18        15-5 19-6
SO  51   07   07    0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry                   053  C 22        17-5 18-7
SO  55   08   08    0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett                   056  A second    14-5 17-8
SO  51   09   06    0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College       059  C 26        16-6 18-6
SO  55   10   nr    0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport       069  C 35        13-5 17-8
SO  51   11   11    0.5603 0.5102 0.5008 Mary Hardin-Baylor        070  C 36        18-7 18-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital                   012  A w C       20-3 22-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll              015  C 4         18-3 20-4
GL  62   03   03    0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin                    033  A w C       12-2 17-7
GL  63   04   04    0.5751 0.4900 0.5023 Wooster                   036  A w C       18-4 19-6
GL  90   05   05    0.5846 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon           044  C 15        14-5 18-6
GL  62   06   08    0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope                      060  C 27        11-4 18-7
GL  63   07   06    0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan             065  C 32        16-6 17-7
GL  64   08   05    0.5622 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern             079              15-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5422 0.4853 0.4838 Penn State-Behrend        089              15-6 17-8

MW  90   01   01    0.6383 0.5498 0.5384 Washington U.             004  A in        21-2 22-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6486 0.5869 0.5634 Wheaton (Ill.)            007  A w C       18-3 22-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6055 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania              020  A w C       16-3 19-5
MW  71   04   05    0.6187 0.5776 0.5594 Elmhurst                  031  C 8         19-6 19-6
MW  71   05   04    0.6125 0.6136 0.5563 North Central             046  C 17        14-7 16-9
MW  71   06   07    0.5865 0.5349 0.5678 Augustana                 051  C 20        17-7 18-7
MW  74   07   06    0.5561 0.4750 0.5015 St. Norbert               057  A second    17-5 18-5
MW  74   08   11    0.5645 0.5270 0.5085 Carroll                   068  C 34        16-7 16-7
MW  74   09   08    0.5513 0.4893 0.4992 Lawrence                  076              16-6 16-6
MW  74   10   10    0.5472 0.4797 0.4927 Grinnell                  078              14-5 17-6
MW  73   11   nr    0.5446 0.4799 0.4985 Benedictine               084  A           18-7 18-7

WE  82   01   01    0.6306 0.5021 0.5182 St. Thomas                002  A w C       24-0 25-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6217 0.4753 0.5361 Puget Sound               003  A w C       20-0 23-2
WE  86   03   03    0.6442 0.5969 0.5499 UW-Stevens Point          008  A w C       20-4 21-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6336 0.5711 0.5588 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         20-4 21-4
WE  81   05   06    0.5909 0.4711 0.5123 Buena Vista               017  A w C       20-2 23-2
WE  86   06   05    0.6219 0.5618 0.5641 UW-Platteville            021  C 6         16-4 21-4
WE  83   07   07    0.5723 0.5038 0.5196 Whitworth                 045  C 16        16-5 19-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5582 0.4790 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    049  A second    16-4 18-6
WE  82   09   10    0.5644 0.5059 0.5068 Bethel                    054  C 23        17-6 19-6
WE  81   10   09    0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell                   058  C 25        17-6 19-6
WE  84   11   nr    0.5330 0.4332 0.4928 Cal Lutheran              082              17-5 19-6


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
   B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
   C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
   C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
   C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
   A in: clinched Pool A bid
   A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
   A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
   A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
   A: lower level Pool A
   blank: lower level Pool C

[pabegg]

Thanks for the info, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using those percentages considering how close you were last year predicting Pool C's. JMO, but for DIII that is weighted too heavily toward the OWP considering how regional DIII is.

For example, a 20-5 team with OWP of .500 would produce equal RPI numbers to a 15-10 team with .600 OWP as long as the OOWP were the same. I don't think those two teams should be equal. But I guess it depends on how the committee is using the RPI number in relation to the actual win/loss records.

The reason I asked is I'm curious if the committee's are looking at a numerical value to rank the teams similiar to how they did with the QOWI, or if there is more room for subjectivity using the different criteria.

We have no idea how the committee actually uses the OWP/OOWP numbers. My work has been to model the committee results, as implemented throughout the season in the regional rankings.

From what I can tell, teams with the best schedules get their results improved by about 2 wins (turning 17-8 into 19-6) and teams with the worst schedules lose about 2 wins, while most teams are somewhere in the middle.

[Titan Q]

Seeing Hamilton as "C1" makes me realize how challenging it is to make a national decision (Pool C) using regional results.  On December 7 on a neutral court, I watched IWU cruise by Hamilton...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

The night before, Wash U also dominated Hamilton.

IWU finished 7th (out of eight) in the CCIW...Hamilton would most likely finish 7th or 8th in the CCIW.  (Massey has Hamilton #86.)   

Hamilton's losses to IWU and Wash U didn't count (they were not in-region), but they help provide perspective on how Hamilton stacks up...especially with IWU, as that was a neutral court game.  What would Hamilton's in-region record be with IWU's schedule?

When IWU @ Occidental counts as in-region, it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.

[augiefan]

it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.

I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.

[Ralph Turner]

it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.

I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.

Wait, isn't that what the OWP/OOWP was to do for us? 

[sac]

it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.

I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.

Actually this system is better for the better conferences than the old SOSI was,  the CCIW, WIAC and NESCAC should get multiple teams in every year under this system.

Contrary to popular opinion in the CCIW, it does not deserve 4 bids just because its fans believe they deserve 4 bids every year.  Two most years, three occasionally.  This system will do that.

...but I also agree all D3 games should count it would make things 100% better.