Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.

[Pat Coleman]

I would say one thing to that -- this is the only time where we get to see a national list based out of these regional rankings. So if there's something we're seeing for the first time, it could be because the selection is only made once.

[Titan Q]

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

I've really only paid attention to the details of the Midwest rankings this year, but I do not think that has been the case in that particular region this year.  What comes to mind is where St. Norbert has been regionally ranked consistently relative to teams with worse in-region winning percentages but better SOS.

Again, that is just the Midwest I'm thinking about and we're discussing a national issue here.  I'd have to dig into it to have a better feel.

[David Collinge]

They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Wow, I am surprised to hear this.  Seems Regional rankings has everything to do with pool C.  Why have them if they don't come into play?  I thought they wanted some geo balance in the tournament not just raw stats.  I don't think something is right with "They don't take regional positioning into consideration."

I think Titan's table suggest otherwise.  But hey, It's just my theory.

The only impact regional rankings have on national selection (as far as we know, or as far as the guidelines say anyway) is to determine what teams are under consideration at any moment.  The national committee can't consider every team in Pool C all at once, so they use the eight regional rankings to winnow the field.  The first bid awarded to a Pool C is determined from a pool of the highest-ranked teams in each region that have not already been selected from Pools A or B.  The selection is then made using whatever combination of primary and secondary criteria the national committee sees fit to use, applied to those eight teams.  Say for argument's sake that Williams (NE #2) was that first team selected.  The next selection is made from a pool of the other seven highest-remaining-ranked teams and WPI, the NE #3 who steps up to take Williams' place "at the table."  The committee doesn't take geographic balance into consideration--or at least they don't admit to it.

The national committee isn't required to, and seemingly doesn't, use the same weighting of criteria as any or all of the regional committees.  That means that it is at least possible that the national committee would have gladly awarded a bid to a team like Eastern Mennonite, based on how that committee views the world, but couldn't because EMU never got to the table, blocked by Ferrum, a team that the national committee did not choose for a Pool C bid.

[ziggy]

The national committee isn't required to, and seemingly doesn't, use the same weighting of criteria as any or all of the regional committees.  That means that it is at least possible that the national committee would have gladly awarded a bid to a team like Eastern Mennonite, based on how that committee views the world, but couldn't because EMU never got to the table, blocked by Ferrum, a team that the national committee did not choose for a Pool C bid.

I think this is right on.

In light of that, however, think about what goes on here compared to the NCAA committee level. To get to the point where we are today in the selection process it has taken a total of nine committees, eight at the regional level and one on the national level. Each committee takes a defined procedure and comes to their own conclusion (not a knock, it's the nature of the beast as currently defined).

It seems to me the NCAA is missing a huge slice of consistency in the name of keeping a number of people involved in the process at the committee level. Has anyone stopped to ask if this is even necessary? Look at this board, we have two people (KnightSlappy and Pat Coleman) that has taken upon themselves to essentially undertake the entire process on their own independently.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

David - one thing to keep in mind... if the national committee, which is made up of the chairs of each of the regional committees, along with the NCAA felt that the regional committee did not rank their teams fairly or in an order they felt was correct based on criteria and such... they would change those rankings and tell that particular committee they did so based on what they determined was the reason. It has been done often even during the season... while I can't speak to exact examples, my sources tell me it isn't that uncommon. That being said, it usually isn't something like the #8 team jumps to #4 or something... but #4 might swap with #5, etc.

Also, the national committee does weigh the same criteria as the regional committees, but they are weighing it on a national scope, not a regional only scope, which changes maybe how those numbers are interrupted. The regional committees take their numbers and rank their teams accordingly based on the numbers in their region... the national committee uses the same numbers and selects teams accordingly. Again... the Midwest Region chair is on the national committee and would make arguments for his region's team as would the chair from say the South... and it is discussed.

I just don't think that the national committee does things differently... they just have a more national scope and have to consider more options and numbers then regional advisory committees.

[nwhoops1903]

Thanks David Collinge.  Excellent explanation and assistance. 

So the committee is not specifically restricted from geographic balance consideration so they may "in the back of their minds" choose to include that element in their determinations/selections.  Seems national committee is making a strong effort to get top 10-16 teams away from each other and then build a bracket that keeps expenses down which is better than the other way around.  This might help explain the MHB and IW choices.  Had they "needed" another midwest team, perhaps Carleton is in and a NE team is out.

How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

nwhoops - there used be a time that "x" number of teams came out of each region. Look at the regional rankings and that was the number of teams and the actual teams that were brought out of each region for a tournament. There was no national scope at all and many of the best teams in the country were left home because of it.

We have thankfully abandoned that dumb idea and gone to a more national scope and our bracket brings on a more nationally feel. We have complained too much of "brackets of death"... now we can look at a bracket and feel good that more of the best teams have a chance to go far into the tournament.

Also... the bracket is not even considered until the teams are selected. I have had long conversations with many who have or do serve on regional and national committees and this couldn't be emphasized enough to me. The teams are selected first... then they look at how to bracket everyone. They aren't choosing teams based on if they can make the tournament bracket work better with Team A then with Team B or Team C.

[nwhoops1903]

nwhoops - there used be a time that "x" number of teams came out of each region. Look at the regional rankings and that was the number of teams and the actual teams that were brought out of each region for a tournament. There was no national scope at all and many of the best teams in the country were left home because of it.

We have thankfully abandoned that dumb idea and gone to a more national scope and our bracket brings on a more nationally feel. We have complained too much of "brackets of death"... now we can look at a bracket and feel good that more of the best teams have a chance to go far into the tournament.

Also... the bracket is not even considered until the teams are selected. I have had long conversations with many who have or do serve on regional and national committees and this couldn't be emphasized enough to me. The teams are selected first... then they look at how to bracket everyone. They aren't choosing teams based on if they can make the tournament bracket work better with Team A then with Team B or Team C.

Thanks!  No bracket until a field is selected.  Good!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Geography and "fiscal responsibility" will trump any regional ranking if that is the case. For example, Whitworth is probably heading on the road. And wherever they can get teams to without too many flights and with more buses will constitute a hosting.

St. Thomas or Augustana are going to be the leaders here. Augustana is the higher regionally ranked team... St. Thomas could be a cheaper flight... but that is stuff based on research by those at Indy.

[carletonsid]

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.

I had thought by this point in the day I would have settled down, but that's not the case.

Plain and simple, the Knights got screwed. Not because I'm a fan and I think they deserve to be in because they're great or something like that, but the NUMBERS JUST DON'T ADD UP!!!!!!

The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

The criteria also states "The NCAA has defined the following as secondary selection criteria if the primary criteria does not result in a decision." {emphasis added by me}

If you look at that primary criteria, Carleton had a better regional win pct. and results vs. regionally ranked teams than IWU and Witt. IWU and Witt had better SOS numbers. Pat stated on our FB page today that he didn't think the committee puts much weight if the numbers are so close in any category. If that's the case, I call major BS (not on Pat, on the committee). If the committee is really saying "well, they're so close, it's a wash on that criteria," then where is the tipping point? Is 19-5 that much better than 16-5 to be "significant?" If your numbers are better, even if only by a small amount, that's better and you should hold that criteria over the other team. Even if it's only one game--they all should count the same, right?

This banter about SOS numbers being so much better and being the reason is interesting. Let's put all the numbers into percentages.

Carleton .750 Reg Win%/.528 SOS/.556 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (5-4)
Witt       .727 Reg Win%/.552 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-3)
IWU       .692 Reg Win%/.543 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-2)
GMC      .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.333 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-4)
Hanover .731 Reg Win%/.542 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (4-4)
UTD       .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.667 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-1)
UMHB    .750 Reg Win%/.508 SOS/.750 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-1)

When you look at it that way, Carleton's .556 winning percentage vs. regionally-ranked teams certainly looks "significant" to me vs. those that are .500 (or .333, goodness gracious sakes alive how did a team receive a Pool C that lost 4 of 6 against other regionally-ranked teams?)

It's just hard to fathom, looking at those numbers, how these six were all picked over Carleton when it held 2 of 3 primary criteria over all four of the six, and if you want to argue that SOS is the most important one, than Carleton should have been picked over UTD and UMHB.

I'm certainly open to someone explaining to me how this played out like it did. 

The final thing I'll say in this post is what a major snub to the West Region (BTW, home of the defending national champions, so the region must be pretty strong). How does a region with six conference and 60 total teams merit only 1 Pool C bid? There's no way to be able to tell, using the NCAA criteria, that the Northeast Region is that much better than the West. The West Region has 14.9% of the Division III teams, yet received a mere 5.5% of the Pool C bids. While I don't want to see a return to allotted bids by region, it's hard to see how the committee could really sit there and say that the West #2 was worse than other regions #3-5.

[nwhoops1903]

How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?

There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?

[Mr. Ypsi]

How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?

There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?

How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?!

[Ralph Turner]

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.

I had thought by this point in the day I would have settled down, but that's not the case.

Plain and simple, the Knights got screwed. Not because I'm a fan and I think they deserve to be in because they're great or something like that, but the NUMBERS JUST DON'T ADD UP!!!!!!

The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

The criteria also states "The NCAA has defined the following as secondary selection criteria if the primary criteria does not result in a decision." {emphasis added by me}

If you look at that primary criteria, Carleton had a better regional win pct. and results vs. regionally ranked teams than IWU and Witt. IWU and Witt had better SOS numbers. Pat stated on our FB page today that he didn't think the committee puts much weight if the numbers are so close in any category. If that's the case, I call major BS (not on Pat, on the committee). If the committee is really saying "well, they're so close, it's a wash on that criteria," then where is the tipping point? Is 19-5 that much better than 16-5 to be "significant?" If your numbers are better, even if only by a small amount, that's better and you should hold that criteria over the other team. Even if it's only one game--they all should count the same, right?

This banter about SOS numbers being so much better and being the reason is interesting. Let's put all the numbers into percentages.

Carleton .750 Reg Win%/.528 SOS/.556 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (5-4)
Witt       .727 Reg Win%/.552 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-3)
IWU       .692 Reg Win%/.543 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-2)
GMC      .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.333 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-4)
Hanover .731 Reg Win%/.542 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (4-4)
UTD       .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.667 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-1)
UMHB    .750 Reg Win%/.508 SOS/.750 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-1)

When you look at it that way, Carleton's .556 winning percentage vs. regionally-ranked teams certainly looks "significant" to me vs. those that are .500 (or .333, goodness gracious sakes alive how did a team receive a Pool C that lost 4 of 6 against other regionally-ranked teams?)

It's just hard to fathom, looking at those numbers, how these six were all picked over Carleton when it held 2 of 3 primary criteria over all four of the six, and if you want to argue that SOS is the most important one, than Carleton should have been picked over UTD and UMHB.

I'm certainly open to someone explaining to me how this played out like it did.  

The final thing I'll say in this post is what a major snub to the West Region (BTW, home of the defending national champions, so the region must be pretty strong). How does a region with six conference and 60 total teams merit only 1 Pool C bid? There's no way to be able to tell, using the NCAA criteria, that the Northeast Region is that much better than the West. The West Region has 14.9% of the Division III teams, yet received a mere 5.5% of the Pool C bids. While I don't want to see a return to allotted bids by region, it's hard to see how the committee could really sit there and say that the West #2 was worse than other regions #3-5.

SOS is the most unjust criterion for the regionally isolated teams in the ASC.

There are literally only 6 non-ASC D3 teams within range of the ASC (Trinity, Southwestern, Hendrix, Millsaps, Austin College and UDallas).  There are no teams for us to play.  IN fact, the OWP/OOWP of the SCAC will take a hit as it becomes more isolated with the loss of Depauw to the NCAC and the addition of UDallas, down here in the middle of "D3-nowhere".

If the ASC wants to play in-region games against teams that will have an OWP that can raise their OWP above .500 then ASC has to fly.

McMurry to Guilford and also played Averett.

UT-Tyler went to LaGrange.  (Coach Haynes is a wonderful guy and outstanding leader of men, but his W/L and OWP did not help UTT or the ASC.)

Concordia-TX brought in Beloit and UW-Platteville to help a little.

Howard Payne went to Rhodes and Rust (622 miles).  Not much help there.

I believe that Carleton was the "19th Pool C bid".  The lack of the win over GAC in the semis, that would have padded the totals, is the difference.