Pool C

[Gregory Sager]

Contrary to popular opinion in the CCIW, it does not deserve 4 bids just because its fans believe they deserve 4 bids every year.

We do?

This is an exceptionally strong year for the CCIW, and I would have no problem at all with one of the four teams in the CCIW tourney being left out of the dance in March. Three CCIW reps seems legitimate to me, even though I suspect that the league might only get in two instead. I have yet to see any poster on CCIW Chat argue that the league deserves three Pool C bids this year on top of the Pool A bid.

In fact, the only time I ever remember a poster pushing for four CCIW teams in the tourney was the notorious lopsided year of '05-'06, when all four CCIW teams were in the Top 25 at season's end.

[Hugenerd]

Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

[Greek Tragedy]

Maybe the committee leaves Hamilton on the table as they left the Atlantic Region last year.

The top Pool C candidate in the Atlantic Region was William Paterson.  The last publicized regional ranking had their record at 18-6 regional record and then a loss to the NJAC final.  Their OWP was .526 and their OOWP was just .516.

William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):

Listed below are the last teams in each region that got a Pool C and then the next Pool C candidate that didn't.

Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA): (only one from East Region)
St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):

Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC): (2nd from Great Lakes)
Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):

Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial): (only one from Mid-Atlantic)
York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):

Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW): (2nd from Midwest)
Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):

Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC): (6th from Northeast)
Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):

Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC): (2nd from South)
Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):

Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC): (3rd from West)
Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):

[Ethelred the Unready]

I know this has been posted somewhere at sometime and I apologize for asking, but I don't get the Pool C ratings and  the positioning that results.  Are the rankings not determined by the totals of RPI, OWP & OOWP?   I took a random (OK, sort of random) look at two teams.  William Patterson is listed (and I understand these positions are estimates) as C13 (ranked 42) which I believe that they "would" be the 13th Pool C team in the tournament.  The total of their RPI, OWP & OOWP is 1.5916.  Rochester is ranked 75 and is not assigned a Pool C number, indicating they are outside looking in.  Not that I disagree with that, but with a combined RPI, OWP & OOWP of 1.646 I am not sure why Patterson is a mortal lock and UR gets to go on Spring Break.  Again, I am pretty sure I asked this last year.  I promise to print the answer if anyone responds.

I just looked at Hamilton's numbers.   As the  #1 C team, their combined RPI, OWP & OOWP is 1.6382, also less than UR's. 

[Greek Tragedy]

At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%

[TeeDub]

At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%

It appears that way on the second glance as well...

[Ethelred the Unready]

At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%

It appears that way on the second glance as well...

...and third.  So what I was missing is that WP is an unlisted factor, making Patterson's combined score 2.36 to UR's 2.31.  That's a pretty small disparity.  Good thing we got's mathmutatical types to do the cypherin'

[Pat Coleman]

Well, you're combining RPI, OWP and OOWP. RPI already considers OWP and OOWP so you are basically counting them twice.

[Ethelred the Unready]

Well, you're combining RPI, OWP and OOWP. RPI already considers OWP and OOWP so you are basically counting them twice.

So my lack of understanding goes deeper.  I am just trying to understand how teams are assigned their Pool C status while coming from a statistical lineage that is limited to batting average and ERA.  And my mother thinks she's seen changes in her life.  Indoor plumbing, electric lights and television is nothing compared to OOWP, WHIP and RPI (a fine institution, by the way).

[Greek Tragedy]

Handbook

The handbook lists Winning % against regional opponents as one of 5 primary criteria.  So, it's listed! 

[Ethelred the Unready]

Handbook

The handbook lists Winning % against regional opponents as one of 5 primary criteria.  So, it's listed! 

So using the teams I mentioned, how are the rankings determined?  In looking at the Pool C listings under this topic, I added RPI, OWP & OOWP to come up with a score.  That isn't right, I gather, as RPI already considers OWP & OOWP.  And I didn't add in region winning percentage, as I didn't see that as a category.  So what makes Patterson the pick for the 13th Pool C bid?   Or Hamilton the #1 pick? 

[Gregory Sager]

Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

It's not a matter of precedent. I'm well aware that leagues have had four teams make it into the tourney in the past; in fact, the NJAC and the WIAC accomplished that feat long before the UAA ever did. I was simply responding to sac's charge that CCIW fans believe their league deserves four bids every season.

[Hugenerd]

Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

It's not a matter of precedent. I'm well aware that leagues have had four teams make it into the tourney in the past; in fact, the NJAC and the WIAC accomplished that feat long before the UAA ever did. I was simply responding to sac's charge that CCIW fans believe their league deserves four bids every season.

My comment wasnt directed to you, really.  I just meant that it is not unprecedented that a league could get 4 teams, so therefore: so what if you think they deserve four this year?  I mean, if those are the teams you follow, you are allowed to have a biased regional perspective.  Thats why we have these boards and the multi-regional boards specifically.

I guess my comment could be interpreted different ways, though. Not every day when you can make a post intending to defend somebody, but make it so vague that you end up offending them for questioning their basketball knowledge.  Thats pretty awesome.

[golden_dome]

Pat,
  You or Dave might have an answer for this. Has the NCAA published or revealed exactly how much importance they give to win/loss record, OWP and OOWP. Pabegg is using the 25%/50%/25% model for his RPI values, but it would be nice to know for sure how much weight each has now.

  The criteria the NCAA uses for regional selection obviously greatly influences how coaches schedule games and you would think the process would be detailed in the handbook. Also it seems like there is not as much emphasis on the # of regional games played, for a while there was emphasis on playing as many DIII regional opponents as possible in the nonconference schedule, but I'm not sure that's still the case.

[Titan Q]

Pat,
  You or Dave might have an answer for this. Has the NCAA published or revealed exactly how much importance they give to win/loss record, OWP and OOWP. Pabegg is using the 25%/50%/25% model for his RPI values, but it would be nice to know for sure how much weight each has now.

  The criteria the NCAA uses for regional selection obviously greatly influences how coaches schedule games and you would think the process would be detailed in the handbook. Also it seems like there is not as much emphasis on the # of regional games played, for a while there was emphasis on playing as many DIII regional opponents as possible in the nonconference schedule, but I'm not sure that's still the case.

Chris, I don't think they have any desire to spell it out in that much detail.  They have clearly identified and communicated 5 primary criteria, and have intentionally left themselves some flexibility in evaluating the 5.  I don't disagree with that approach.  I don't think being tied to a specific weighting between the primary criteria would be healthy.

Here is some recommended listening from March 2008.  Dave McHugh interviews Gary Grace (Wartburg), who I believe was the national chair last year...

http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/08/grace022408.mp3

Among other things, they discuss the relationship of OWP to OOWP, which gets at some of your question.  Take a few minutes if you have not heard this.