Pool C

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I know from talking to regional members and national members that if a team beats another regionally ranked opponent in a different region it is counted.

Now... I think if the game is considered a regional game, it is in the first-criteria. If it is not a regional game, it would be put in the second-criteria.

We are working to see if we can have a number of these questions answered Sunday on Hoopsville. Remember, it will be a special time of 2-4 PM EST so you don't miss the great ads during some athletic event most of us probably don't care about!

[Pat Coleman]

I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?

I don't think there is any at the level of the regional call but on the national call, obviously, all regions are supposed to be represented.

Indeed, men's basketball is a once-ranked/always-ranked sport.

Women's basketball, of course, is not.

Go figure.

It was pointed out to me that the page in the handbook that says women's is not once-ranked/always-ranked ALSO says that women's basketball is OR/AR.

It will be corrected. Women's basketball is indeed OR/AR.

[Hugenerd]

Sorry for not specifying what pdf I was talking about.  I meant the pdf that was released last year along with the regional rankings that listed in-region winning percentage, SOS, and record against ranked opponents for all teams in each region (I think there was a seperate pdf for each region).  If would be easy to figure out fromt he record vs. ranked opponents column as to whether they treat those wins as a primary or secondary criteria (as only the primary criteria was listed in the pdf release). 

[KnightSlappy]

Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!

[KnightSlappy]

Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!

Right. By intuition we always knew it was way off, but to see just how much it's changing RPI in comparision to the D-I adjustment was a bit surprising even to me.

[Coach C]

Nice work Ms. Ypsi.  I am not a math guy by any means, but I will tell you that 40% is just too high no matter how you use it as an adjustment.

In my experience, playing a bad team in there gym is not really much harder than playing them at home or on a neutral floor.  I mean how much harder is it to beat Cal tech at their place than in Vegas?

Similarly, teams that are +.500 on the road are generally tough to play anywhere.  Good teams can beat you at their place or at yours. 

There are a lot of factors that go into the quality of a road win.  Was it over break?  If so, this probably isn't that big a differential from you own gym unless you're Hope or Calvin, pulling in rabid fans from the local community.    How far did you to play the game?  While this isn't a be-all and end-all, I can tell you from hard experience that the further you travel the harder it generally is to play on the other end.

I've got no idea where .4 came from, but it's WAY to large a modifier to be accurate.

C

[Pat Coleman]

Newest men's regional rankings are up. Pass it on:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/

[KnightSlappy]

The missing #3 MA team has got to be St. Mary's (Md.), but I don't think the listed records are correct. I have them as 16-2 in-region.

[Pat Coleman]

I did include St. Mary's even though the NCAA left St. Mary's off its list.

[GuyFormerlyPSBBG]

Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!

Right. By intuition we always knew it was way off, but to see just how much it's changing RPI in comparision to the D-I adjustment was a bit surprising even to me.

Nice analysis.  I was thinking about this ever since the discussion was mentioned on hoopsville.  I agree the 1.4 and .6 is not accurate for DIII (I mean the hoopsville promo says "more upsets than..."(I can't remember the rest))

I think it should be weighted.   Unlike D1, there are a lot of long distance bus trips.  That can put alot of wear and tear on team.  DIII schools are vastly different and so are the tournaments.  It is hard to put such a uniform weight region to region, when the scope of DIII is so different.

   

[deiscanton]

Regarding Pat Coleman's concerns about the accuracy of the men's SOS data in the regional rankings, as listed in his comments that posted the links:

  http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/#comments

His comments on the data were posted at 5:14 PM yesterday-- Feb. 9, 2011

I checked the files this morning, and at first glance, the NCAA may have updated the files since Pat Coleman
s comments to give the up to date regional results on the men's side through Sunday, Feb. 6.

I computed the average OWP of the Brandeis men with my newly purchased pocket calculator, for instance, and I found that the number given for Brandeis's average OWP was correct with the multiplier factored in, given the data presented.  With the in-region records of the Brandeis men's opponents factored in as given by the NCAA, I had Brandeis's average OWP at .469 with the home/away multiplier (which is the number that the NCAA gave for Brandeis), and at .495 without the home/away multiplier. 

This result was through the game at Rochester on Feb. 6, so the road game at Amherst will be factored in next week's regional rankings.

I haven't calculated the numbers yet for the Emory and the Rochester men, but since the average OWP for the Brandeis men seemed correct to me, I don't believe that the average OWPs with the multiplier for Emory and Rochester will be radically different than what the NCAA computed.

I trust that KnightSlappy will check some of the numbers to confirm the accuracy....

[KnightSlappy]

My SOS numbers are off 0.002 - 0.006 on most teams.

I'm seeing the biggest difference in the OOWP numbers.

[Pat Coleman]

That suggests they're being done properly, then, with only a couple of games here and there being marked incorrectly on the NCAA said.

Good catch on the updates, Deiscanton.

[hopefan]

I tink Pat, Knightslappy, Desi, Ypsi need to conduct an online course for some of us old heads who have fallen behind....  3 credits for "Modern Math and Computing for the Everyday D3Hoops Fan"....   I've totally lost the concepts!!!