Pool C

Gregory Sager · February 23, 2009, 04:13:32 PM

Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
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.

Three cheers for the ambiguity of the English language!

And people wonder why I drone on and on trying to explain myself sometimes.

Back to the point at hand: I certainly wouldn't object if the CCIW got three Pool C's alongside the Pool A, of course. I don't see it happening, since that would mean that one of the Pool C's is going to Augie or NCC, and I can't envision either of them managing to finagle a Pool C bid on Selection Sunday.

I'm ambivalent about the word "deserve", though. I'm certain that Wheaton, Elmhurst, Augie, and NCC are all among the top 57 teams in D3 (leaving the three Pool B bids out of it), and I'm not really going out on a limb in saying that; Ken Massey and his magic thinkbox have all four within D3's top fifteen, so in that sense I do feel that the CCIW deserves four berths. But the selection process doesn't work that way, and I'm as aware of that as anyone. Therefore, I don't feel any sense of entitlement regarding the CCIW getting three Pool C berths.

golden_dome · February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PM

Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2009, 04:12:06 PM
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.

Titan,
Thanks for that link, lots of information and a great interview from Dave. I think Dave asked about every question possible and most were answered. I still would like to know if there is a benefit from playing more regional games, based on that interview I would not think the benefit is there anymore and playing 15 regional games is as good as 20.

We disagree on a couple points though. I'm glad the QOWI system is gone but I do miss the numerical value applied to teams because in my opinion it was much less subjective. Having 5 criteria all listed as primary makes it much easier for coaches to play favorites and manipulate the numbers in certain instances. And I think the lack of detailed instruction does put committee members in a bad spot when making tough decisions and does little to protect them from scrutiny.

This is a minor thing, but I would also think the lack of detail gives an advantage to coaches serviing on the committees with first hand knowledge of how the process works, while the other coaches are trying to figure out what is best for them. I would like to see an explained numerical number produced from the regional record, OWP and OOWP. Then if there is significant difference, you go to the other criteria.

pabegg · February 23, 2009, 11:22:30 PM

OK, here are the rankings with all of the games through Sunday.

Analysis at the bottom

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 C 4 20-3 22-3
NE 13 04 05 0.6156 0.5505 0.5213 Rhode Island College 015 A w C 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 033 C 9 17-4 18-6
NE 16 08 08 0.5967 0.5282 0.5475 Amherst 034 C 10 18-5 20-5
NE 11 09 09 0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 042 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 053 C 22 16-6 17-8
NE 90 12 13 0.5957 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis 054 C 23 16-8 16-8
NE 11 13 nr 0.5514 0.4794 0.4740 Gordon 061 C 30 17-5 19-6

EA 21 01 01 0.6422 0.5377 0.5369 Ithaca 001 A w C 22-1 24-1
EA 24 02 02 0.6089 0.5166 0.5133 Hamilton 009 C 1 16-2 18-6
EA 24 03 03 0.6104 0.5775 0.5138 St. Lawrence 029 A w C 17-5 19-5
EA 21 04 06 0.5842 0.5713 0.5141 Utica 063 C 32 17-8 17-8
EA 90 05 05 0.5713 0.5417 0.5351 Rochester 070 C 37 16-8 16-8
EA 23 06 nr 0.5507 0.4950 0.4986 Fredonia State 083 15-6 16-8
EA 21 07 04 0.5715 0.5678 0.5315 Rochester Tech 087 13-8 17-8
EA 61 08 nr 0.5374 0.4803 0.4747 Medaille 093 A 15-6 19-6

AT 32 01 01 0.6024 0.4964 0.5076 Richard Stockton 010 A w C 20-2 23-2
AT 33 02 02 0.5942 0.4866 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale 014 A w C 23-2 23-2
AT 33 03 04 0.5623 0.4397 0.4949 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 037 C 11 21-3 22-3
AT 32 04 06 0.5853 0.5404 0.4985 Montclair State 040 C 13 16-5 20-5
AT 31 05 03 0.5591 0.4396 0.4875 Baruch 041 A w C 20-3 22-4
AT 32 06 06 0.5748 0.5132 0.5037 William Paterson 044 C 15 20-6 20-6
AT 31 07 07 0.5283 0.4112 0.4908 Brooklyn 086 20-5 21-5
AT 31 08 08 0.5191 0.4608 0.4880 Lehman 118 16-8 18-8

MA 45 01 01 0.6066 0.5289 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 0.5315 McDaniel 043 C 14 16-6 18-7
MA 44 06 07 0.5557 0.4536 0.4895 Gwynedd-Mercy 048 A second 19-4 20-5
MA 46 07 08 0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton 066 B 2 18-6 19-6
MA 45 08 11 0.5761 0.5517 0.5344 Gettysburg 067 C 35 16-8 16-8
MA 41 09 06 0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley 071 C 38 14-5 16-9
MA 44 10 09 0.5435 0.4682 0.4776 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 0.5971 0.5059 0.5130 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 0.6036 0.5565 0.5015 Centre 028 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 0.5707 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw 047 C 18 15-5 19-6
SO 51 07 07 0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry 052 C 21 17-5 18-7
SO 55 08 08 0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett 056 C 25 14-5 17-8
SO 51 09 06 0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College 059 C 28 16-6 18-6
SO 55 10 nr 0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport 068 A third 13-5 17-8
SO 51 11 11 0.5603 0.5102 0.5007 Mary Hardin-Baylor 069 C 36 18-7 18-7

GL 64 01 01 0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital 012 C 3 20-3 22-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll 016 A w C 18-3 20-4
GL 62 03 03 0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin 032 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 0.5853 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon 045 C 16 14-5 18-6
GL 62 06 08 0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope 060 C 29 11-4 18-7
GL 63 07 06 0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan 065 C 34 16-6 17-7
GL 64 08 05 0.5623 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern 080 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 0.5508 0.5384 Washington U. 004 A in 21-2 22-2
MW 71 02 02 0.6486 0.5869 0.5635 Wheaton (Ill.) 007 A w C 18-3 22-3
MW 72 03 03 0.6056 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania 020 A w C 16-3 19-5
MW 71 04 05 0.6192 0.5786 0.5596 Elmhurst 031 C 8 19-6 19-6
MW 71 05 04 0.6131 0.6147 0.5563 North Central 046 C 17 14-7 16-9
MW 71 06 07 0.5865 0.5349 0.5679 Augustana 051 C 20 17-7 18-7
MW 74 07 06 0.5560 0.4750 0.5014 St. Norbert 057 C 26 17-5 18-5
MW 74 08 11 0.5638 0.5256 0.5085 Carroll 074 16-7 16-7
MW 74 09 08 0.5512 0.4893 0.4990 Lawrence 076 16-6 16-6
MW 74 10 10 0.5472 0.4797 0.4926 Grinnell 078 A 14-5 17-6
MW 73 11 nr 0.5449 0.4805 0.4986 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 0.6201 0.4719 0.5365 Puget Sound 003 A w C 20-0 23-2
WE 86 03 03 0.6442 0.5969 0.5496 UW-Stevens Point 008 A w C 20-4 21-4
WE 86 04 04 0.6329 0.5696 0.5592 UW-Whitewater 011 C 2 20-4 21-4
WE 81 05 06 0.5909 0.4711 0.5122 Buena Vista 017 A w C 20-2 23-2
WE 86 06 05 0.6219 0.5618 0.5638 UW-Platteville 021 C 6 16-4 21-4
WE 83 07 07 0.5764 0.5065 0.5201 Whitworth 038 C 12 17-5 20-5
WE 84 08 08 0.5584 0.4795 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 049 A second 16-4 18-6
WE 82 09 10 0.5644 0.5059 0.5069 Bethel 055 C 24 17-6 19-6
WE 81 10 09 0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell 058 C 27 17-6 19-6
WE 84 11 nr 0.5330 0.4332 0.4927 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

WashU is in as a Pool A.

In the worst case, every favorite loses in their conference tournament. In that case, the top 18 schools on the board would need Pool C bids. Teams 2-10 would be guaranteed one of those spots.

In a normal year, five Pool C bids will go to teams who get upset. This puts the current cutoff at #40 Montclair State, but only teams down to #34 Amherst can be certain of being in that top 40. Schools 11-22 are statistical locks (over 95% chance) while schools 23-34 will have to sweat out any unusual patterns of upsets.

Schools #35 down to #47 DePauw would be in today, but they'll be on the bubble come Sunday if nothing else changes.

Schools from #48 to #63 Utica are on the wrong side of the bubble, and probably need Pool A bids, but could be in consideration with a strong run in their tournaments.

Notable are Carnegie Mellon and Brandeis, who are the only Pool C contenders who could go unbeaten this week (since for everyone else, an unbeaten week means a Pool A bid). They could jump up about five spots with a 1-0 week.

Mr. Ypsi · February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM

Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise. And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused). For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs.

Hugenerd · February 23, 2009, 11:38:04 PM

Quote from: pabegg on February 23, 2009, 11:22:30 PM
OK, here are the rankings with all of the games through Sunday.

Analysis at the bottom

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 C 4 20-3 22-3
NE 13 04 05 0.6156 0.5505 0.5213 Rhode Island College 015 A w C 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 033 C 9 17-4 18-6
NE 16 08 08 0.5967 0.5282 0.5475 Amherst 034 C 10 18-5 20-5
NE 11 09 09 0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 042 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 053 C 22 16-6 17-8
NE 90 12 13 0.5957 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis 054 C 23 16-8 16-8
NE 11 13 nr 0.5514 0.4794 0.4740 Gordon 061 C 30 17-5 19-6

EA 21 01 01 0.6422 0.5377 0.5369 Ithaca 001 A w C 22-1 24-1
EA 24 02 02 0.6089 0.5166 0.5133 Hamilton 009 C 1 16-2 18-6
EA 24 03 03 0.6104 0.5775 0.5138 St. Lawrence 029 A w C 17-5 19-5
EA 21 04 06 0.5842 0.5713 0.5141 Utica 063 C 32 17-8 17-8
EA 90 05 05 0.5713 0.5417 0.5351 Rochester 070 C 37 16-8 16-8
EA 23 06 nr 0.5507 0.4950 0.4986 Fredonia State 083 15-6 16-8
EA 21 07 04 0.5715 0.5678 0.5315 Rochester Tech 087 13-8 17-8
EA 61 08 nr 0.5374 0.4803 0.4747 Medaille 093 A 15-6 19-6

AT 32 01 01 0.6024 0.4964 0.5076 Richard Stockton 010 A w C 20-2 23-2
AT 33 02 02 0.5942 0.4866 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale 014 A w C 23-2 23-2
AT 33 03 04 0.5623 0.4397 0.4949 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 037 C 11 21-3 22-3
AT 32 04 06 0.5853 0.5404 0.4985 Montclair State 040 C 13 16-5 20-5
AT 31 05 03 0.5591 0.4396 0.4875 Baruch 041 A w C 20-3 22-4
AT 32 06 06 0.5748 0.5132 0.5037 William Paterson 044 C 15 20-6 20-6
AT 31 07 07 0.5283 0.4112 0.4908 Brooklyn 086 20-5 21-5
AT 31 08 08 0.5191 0.4608 0.4880 Lehman 118 16-8 18-8

MA 45 01 01 0.6066 0.5289 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 0.5315 McDaniel 043 C 14 16-6 18-7
MA 44 06 07 0.5557 0.4536 0.4895 Gwynedd-Mercy 048 A second 19-4 20-5
MA 46 07 08 0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton 066 B 2 18-6 19-6
MA 45 08 11 0.5761 0.5517 0.5344 Gettysburg 067 C 35 16-8 16-8
MA 41 09 06 0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley 071 C 38 14-5 16-9
MA 44 10 09 0.5435 0.4682 0.4776 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 0.5971 0.5059 0.5130 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 0.6036 0.5565 0.5015 Centre 028 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 0.5707 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw 047 C 18 15-5 19-6
SO 51 07 07 0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry 052 C 21 17-5 18-7
SO 55 08 08 0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett 056 C 25 14-5 17-8
SO 51 09 06 0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College 059 C 28 16-6 18-6
SO 55 10 nr 0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport 068 A third 13-5 17-8
SO 51 11 11 0.5603 0.5102 0.5007 Mary Hardin-Baylor 069 C 36 18-7 18-7

GL 64 01 01 0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital 012 C 3 20-3 22-3
GL 64 02 02 0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll 016 A w C 18-3 20-4
GL 62 03 03 0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin 032 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 0.5853 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon 045 C 16 14-5 18-6
GL 62 06 08 0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope 060 C 29 11-4 18-7
GL 63 07 06 0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan 065 C 34 16-6 17-7
GL 64 08 05 0.5623 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern 080 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 0.5508 0.5384 Washington U. 004 A in 21-2 22-2
MW 71 02 02 0.6486 0.5869 0.5635 Wheaton (Ill.) 007 A w C 18-3 22-3
MW 72 03 03 0.6056 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania 020 A w C 16-3 19-5
MW 71 04 05 0.6192 0.5786 0.5596 Elmhurst 031 C 8 19-6 19-6
MW 71 05 04 0.6131 0.6147 0.5563 North Central 046 C 17 14-7 16-9
MW 71 06 07 0.5865 0.5349 0.5679 Augustana 051 C 20 17-7 18-7
MW 74 07 06 0.5560 0.4750 0.5014 St. Norbert 057 C 26 17-5 18-5
MW 74 08 11 0.5638 0.5256 0.5085 Carroll 074 16-7 16-7
MW 74 09 08 0.5512 0.4893 0.4990 Lawrence 076 16-6 16-6
MW 74 10 10 0.5472 0.4797 0.4926 Grinnell 078 A 14-5 17-6
MW 73 11 nr 0.5449 0.4805 0.4986 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 0.6201 0.4719 0.5365 Puget Sound 003 A w C 20-0 23-2
WE 86 03 03 0.6442 0.5969 0.5496 UW-Stevens Point 008 A w C 20-4 21-4
WE 86 04 04 0.6329 0.5696 0.5592 UW-Whitewater 011 C 2 20-4 21-4
WE 81 05 06 0.5909 0.4711 0.5122 Buena Vista 017 A w C 20-2 23-2
WE 86 06 05 0.6219 0.5618 0.5638 UW-Platteville 021 C 6 16-4 21-4
WE 83 07 07 0.5764 0.5065 0.5201 Whitworth 038 C 12 17-5 20-5
WE 84 08 08 0.5584 0.4795 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 049 A second 16-4 18-6
WE 82 09 10 0.5644 0.5059 0.5069 Bethel 055 C 24 17-6 19-6
WE 81 10 09 0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell 058 C 27 17-6 19-6
WE 84 11 nr 0.5330 0.4332 0.4927 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

WashU is in as a Pool A.

In the worst case, every favorite loses in their conference tournament. In that case, the top 18 schools on the board would need Pool C bids. Teams 2-10 would be guaranteed one of those spots.

In a normal year, five Pool C bids will go to teams who get upset. This puts the current cutoff at #40 Montclair State, but only teams down to #34 Amherst can be certain of being in that top 40. Schools 11-22 are statistical locks (over 95% chance) while schools 23-34 will have to sweat out any unusual patterns of upsets.

Schools #35 down to #47 DePauw would be in today, but they'll be on the bubble come Sunday if nothing else changes.

Schools from #48 to #63 Utica are on the wrong side of the bubble, and probably need Pool A bids, but could be in consideration with a strong run in their tournaments.

Notable are Carnegie Mellon and Brandeis, who are the only Pool C contenders who could go unbeaten this week (since for everyone else, an unbeaten week means a Pool A bid). They could jump up about five spots with a 1-0 week.

Patrick,

Since you mention CMU and Brandeis, I have a question for you (or two). Since your rankings dont take into account other criteria like head-to-head, etc., I have some questions for you about what you think will happen in the rankings from what you have seen so far. First, with regards to Brandeis, lets say Brandeis goes up to #9 in these weeks NE rankings since UNE lost last week (Amherst was #8 last week). If next weekend Brandeis wins their game at NYU and Amherst loses somewhere in the NESCAC tourney, what chance do you think there is of the committee flipping Brandeis and Amherst in the rankings? If Amherst loses again, that would give them 6 and Brandeis would have 8 (but 5 of those are to regionally ranked opponents, and 2 of those to WashU). Brandeis obviously beat Amherst at their place recently and has also beaten regionally ranked RIC, who Amherst lost to this month.

With regards to CMU, you have them ranked below Wooster, but with the head-to-head in their favor, CMU has consistenly ranked above Wooster in the weekly polls (even though your calculated RPI for CMU was lower than Wooster last week). If CMU wins against Rochester, giving them 5 regional losses and John Carroll loses their tourney, giving them 4 region losses, what do you think CMU's chances are of skipping above them? CMU will also likely have a considerable OWP and OOWP advantage over John Carroll (CMU is currently .557 .531, compared to JCU's .524 .523).

golden_dome · February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise. And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused). For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs.

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Ralph Turner · February 23, 2009, 11:55:46 PM

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise. And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused). For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs.

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Except we can't get ASC coaches to understand how this works!

Pat Coleman came to Texas in 2004 and could not convince them.

We still mandate 20/21, so that eliminates the flexibility in the schedules.

Whether budgetary constraints, or other issues, we (the ASC) still play a lot of NAIA's and D1's and D2's.

I personally am glad that MOV is not a criterion. Participation is the key in D3.

golden_dome · February 24, 2009, 12:26:51 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2009, 11:55:46 PM
Except we can't get ASC coaches to understand how this works!

Pat Coleman came to Texas in 2004 and could not convince them.

We still mandate 20/21, so that eliminates the flexibility in the schedules.

Whether budgetary constraints, or other issues, we (the ASC) still play a lot of NAIA's and D1's and D2's.

I personally am glad that MOV is not a criterion. Participation is the key in D3.

Ralph,
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. There were several teams in the ASC who did take the advice, the UMHB men and MC women are good examples. Many top ASC teams did make good changes to the schedule, but you can't expect all the teams to do so. Many teams aren't worried about the NCAA Tournament and lowering conference games will only add NAIA to the nonconference, which will still result in a conference OWP around .500.
But to be honest I am not sure myself how the system works or how I would advise someone to schedule. If playing more regional games is not rewarded, then I might tell coaches to play NAIA teams for their tough games since they don't count.
ASC coaches are always going to be limited by the conference schedule, and an OWP of .525 - .550 is about as good as it is going to get, far short of some .600 you see from some regions.

Ralph Turner · February 24, 2009, 01:03:25 AM

Thanks for the response.

Plusses:

--UMHB-LeTU for the UWW game (and Lake Forest)
--UTD-UTT for the Guilford game (and LSU-Shreveport in the tourney)
--UTD can always get games with Austin College (twice).
--MissCollege Rust and Sewanee are South Region. (I wish you could get some in-region games out of the Great Lakes. IMHO, Rust and Sewanee did not raise your OWP/OOWP like UWW did for UMHB and LeTU.)
--LaCollege for Millsaps.
--UOzarks for Hendrix. (They also played Maryville MO and Webster which are relatively close to Ozarks but are not in-region!

)
--ETBU for getting Austin College and UDallas.

CTX got WPI to come south. It is not in-region, but it is a great win over Pabegg's #5 team nationally! (Concordia-TX finished 3rd in the ASC-West)
HSU for UDallas, Southwestern and Austin College.
HPU and TLU got Anderson on a "snow-bird" trip.
UMHB also got TU and Southwestern.
McMurry got North Central IL. (Non-region St Vincent PA (22-3) was the other team in the tourney in Las Vegas.)
Schreiner got Trinity and Southwestern.

As I look more closely at these games, there are just no more schools available to add practically to the schedules without traveling out of the area. Only the SCIAC and the NWC are more isolated. $:-\$

That makes OWP/OOWP less valuable as a tool to evaluate this part of the country.

pabegg · February 24, 2009, 06:36:46 AM

Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 11:38:04 PM
Patrick,

Since you mention CMU and Brandeis, I have a question for you (or two). Since your rankings dont take into account other criteria like head-to-head, etc., I have some questions for you about what you think will happen in the rankings from what you have seen so far. First, with regards to Brandeis, lets say Brandeis goes up to #9 in these weeks NE rankings since UNE lost last week (Amherst was #8 last week). If next weekend Brandeis wins their game at NYU and Amherst loses somewhere in the NESCAC tourney, what chance do you think there is of the committee flipping Brandeis and Amherst in the rankings? If Amherst loses again, that would give them 6 and Brandeis would have 8 (but 5 of those are to regionally ranked opponents, and 2 of those to WashU). Brandeis obviously beat Amherst at their place recently and has also beaten regionally ranked RIC, who Amherst lost to this month.

With regards to CMU, you have them ranked below Wooster, but with the head-to-head in their favor, CMU has consistenly ranked above Wooster in the weekly polls (even though your calculated RPI for CMU was lower than Wooster last week). If CMU wins against Rochester, giving them 5 regional losses and John Carroll loses their tourney, giving them 4 region losses, what do you think CMU's chances are of skipping above them? CMU will also likely have a considerable OWP and OOWP advantage over John Carroll (CMU is currently .557 .531, compared to JCU's .524 .523).

To be honest, I don't know how the committees will deal with those details. Until the committee releases more information about the process, none of us really knows.

However, the committees are nothing if not consistent. Whatever goes into their rankings every week shows up week after week. So if the Great Lakes committee has decided to rank Carnegie Mellon ahead of Wooster due to the head-to-head, I would expect that factor to be there in the selection process.

When the real rankings come out on Wednesday, expect those rankings to be very close to what the final selection rankings will be. Over the last several years, very few teams have gotten into the tournament by passing a team ranked above them in the final week. In all but one case, those situations have involved a team that went 0-1 in the week and dropped down, rather than someone moving up with a good week.

Titan Q · February 24, 2009, 07:06:13 AM

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise. And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused). For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs.

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Chris, a few years ago when QOWI was around, the same 5 primary criteria were used to evaluate teams:

1. In-region winning %
2. Strength of schedule
3. In-region head-to-head
4. In-region common opponents
5. In-region results vs regionally ranked teams.

The only difference now is that OWP/OOWP is the metric used for #2, instead of QOWI.

When you say, "QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number", two things to keep in mind:

1) Again, the same 5 primary criteria - without specific weighting assigned - were used three years ago. As is the case today, we're safe to say that in-region winning % was by far the most heavily weighted, with strength of schedule (then QOWI, now OWP/OOWP) second, and the other three as kind of "tie-breakers."

2) While D3hoops.com may have ranked teams in order of QOWI for purposes of projecting Pool C bids, that is not what the Regional Advisory Committees and the national committee did at all. Those groups went through the same exact process the RAC's have been using all season long in 2008-09, and that the national committee will use this Sunday...with the only difference being, QOWI is now replaced with OWP/OOWP. (Just as Patrick Abegg's projection process with the new OWP/OOWP system, while very helpful and accurate, is not how the RAC's and national committee do this at all.)

Titan Q · February 24, 2009, 07:33:00 AM

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PM
This is a minor thing, but I would also think the lack of detail gives an advantage to coaches serviing on the committees with first hand knowledge of how the process works, while the other coaches are trying to figure out what is best for them.

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Chris, I see where you are coming from, but I honestly think Division III coaches know exactly how they need to schedule. We've been using this "in-region" process for several years now, and I think everyone knows...

* In-region D3 games are the only ones that count.

* Strength of schedule will be considered.

* In-region winning % is the most significant criteria - gotta win games.

With this system, there is hardly any margin for the good ole boys network. Think about it - a computer model (Patrick Abegg's) picked 16 of the 17 Pool C's last year. That % will probably be about the same this year. (In years past, D3hoops.com was nailing a huge % of Pool C's as well, basically using numbers.)

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PMI still would like to know if there is a benefit from playing more regional games, based on that interview I would not think the benefit is there anymore and playing 15 regional games is as good as 20.

I think the answer ultimately depends on how those additional in-region games affect your resume in terms of the 5 selection criteria. Bottom line, you have to finish with the best in-region winning % possible. Beating other good teams along the way helps too.

Coaches have to evaluate their situation and schedule accordingly. A coach in a league who expects to lose 4-5 conference games, even as a top 3 team, should look at things differently than a coach who thinks he can go through his or her league with 1-2 losses.

It is clear that non-conference, in-region equity goes a long way to building the resume. But if you can't win, say, 80%+ of those non-conference, in-region games, it won't help to play them.

luvikings · February 24, 2009, 10:28:11 AM

Lawrence is 17-6, not 16-6.. it is wrong on the top 25 where they are ranked #25 and in your pool C breakdowns. Somehow, their game at Ripon on saturday (they won 97-75) was left out but has been corrected on the team page and conference page.

pabegg · February 24, 2009, 10:29:07 AM

Tuesday of Tournament Week is normally reserved for major upsets and last chances for low-ranked teams as many conferences play their quarterfinal round.

Losses tonight by UW-Whitewater, Rhode Island College, or Mass-Dartmouth would be embarassing but would not keep those schools out of the tournament.

Wooster would likely see their Pool C hopes go away with an upset loss tonight.

The interesting situation is in the NJAC, where they've moved to the semifinals already. Richard Stockton, who's done enough to clinch a Pool C berth, takes on William Paterson, who is on the bubble. I think Paterson needs a win to make the NCAAs, but they might have a chance even with a loss. On the other side of the bracket, Montclair State must avoid the upset by Rutgers-Newark to maintain their spot on the bubble.

golden_dome · February 24, 2009, 11:51:21 AM

Titan,
Thanks for the responses, we agree for the most part. I think the system now is much better with a more accurate strength fo schedule component, as long as it is implemented like we think it is. I hope there is an RPI number derived from the regional record, OWP and OOWP that the committees go by for the most part, then if it's close you see the other criteria come into play.
I would disagree with you on how the QOWI was implemented. I do know that regional rankings were greatly dependent on the QOWI number, then if it was close you saw other criteria invovled. But 9 times out of 10 the the rankings went by the QOWI.

Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 07:33:00 AM
Chris, I see where you are coming from, but I honestly think Division III coaches know exactly how they need to schedule. We've been using this "in-region" process for several years now, and I think everyone knows...

* In-region D3 games are the only ones that count.

* Strength of schedule will be considered.

* In-region winning % is the most significant criteria - gotta win games.

With this system, there is hardly any margin for the good ole boys network.

Again, I agree for the most part. I just don't see any benefit to not giving a detailed explanation of the process in the handbook considering we have competing coaches making the regional ranking decisions, and they don't all like each other. Could you imagine what people would say if Division I were done that way and it determined who got in the NCAA Tournament. Nothing wrong with it, but the less room for ambiguity the better.

Pool C

golden_dome

golden_dome

golden_dome

golden_dome