Pool C

[sac]

Getting in the D3 tournament is also not the end-all, be-all for a large portion of the D3 community.

[Titan Q]

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. 

I think, however, that was due to the fact that QOWI almost directly tracked with in-region winning %.  With QOWI, a win over a bad team was significantly better than a loss to a great team.  At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure a list of the top QOWI teams tracked very, very closely with a list of the top in-region winning percentages.  Using both in-region winning % and QOWI was redundant, which is why it was scrapped in favor of a more traditional "strength of schedule" element.

As long as we have been doing this in-region thing, I'm sure that in-region winning % has always been the biggie.

[Titan Q]

A post I made 3 seasons ago, from the archives...

The NCAA Division III Tournament Committee does not look at the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll at all.  D3hoops.com is a private website run with no tie to the NCAA.  The complete criteria for tournament selection and seeding is spelled out in the 2006 Championship Handbook:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

See "Primary Criteria", starting on page 15 and continuing and page 16...

* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
* Quality of Wins Index
* In-region head-to-head competition
* In-region results vs common opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams (only teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process count as "ranked")

I don't think anyone has any idea how the committee weighs these 5 primary criteria, but it seems like in-region win-loss % and QOWI are the big two.

(Just to confirm how the primary criteria was defined then.)

[Ralph Turner]

2009 Criteria


http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf

Selection Criteria.

Primary Criteria

The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA
championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/
selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth
years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members
shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.

Secondary Criteria

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the
secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not
listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from
other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the basketball committee.

[Ralph Turner]

Good news on the scoreboard.  Richard Stockton 61 WPU 43 in the NJAC Semis  12:00 left.

We (non-Atlantic) Pool C fans need no viable Pool C candidates from the Atlantic on the table. We need Richard Stockton to take care of business this week.

Regional Rankings from Feb 18th

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 22-2 19-2
2. Farmingdale State 21-2 21-2
3. William Paterson 19-5 19-5
4. Baruch 21-4 19-3
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 20-3 19-3

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

RIC and UMASS-D both hold serve tonight.

[Hugenerd]

Rutgers Newark upsets Montclair State with a 3 at the buzzer to win by 1 (according to the livestats).  Another one of pabegg's bubble teams go down.

[Hugenerd]

Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

River Falls is hanging with Whitewater in the second half.

[frodotwo]

WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

[frodotwo]

WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81

[Ralph Turner]

WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81

Do we Pool C fans (all of us against everybody else who might be taking the Pool C bid that each of us wants) breathe a sigh of relief?

Big question...Would a first round loss to UWRF knocked UWW so deep into the West Regional rankings that they might not have gotten to the table?

[sac]

WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81

Do we Pool C fans (all of us against everybody else who might be taking the Pool C bid that each of us wants) breathe a sigh of relief?

Big question...Would a first round loss to UWRF knocked UWW so deep into the West Regional rankings that they might not have gotten to the table?

I don't think so, the three WIAC's seem to be a lock, I'm not sure it matters which one wins the A bid, so long as its one of those 3.

[Ralph Turner]

Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67

Rutgers-Newark 58 Montclair State 57.

Now we need RSNJ to earn the Pool A.

[Hugenerd]

Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67

Rutgers-Newark 58 Montclair State 57.

Now we need RSNJ to earn the Pool A.

Ralph,

I think you and I are cheering for the same teams so far (I am sure you will be cheering for WPI in the NEWMAC while I will be cheering for MIT).  With regards to tournaments that began last night, it would be nice to see a Richard Stockton win, as you said, and for Wooster to take care of business in their tourney.  I dont think their were any other conference tourneys with teams that had bubble Pool C chances that played last night (I would consider the 3 WIAC schools essentially locks at this point).