Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

I have to believe the loss to Buffalo State is what kept them out.

Even TitanQ has stated in the last 5 rounds pretty much everything is on the table.

Sure, Wesleyan, your numbers are as good or better across the board, but you did lose one out-of-region game to Buffalo State. Unfortunatley, we throw out a season's worth of data and over-emphasize random and arbitrart criteria around here. It's called "looking inside the numbers". We also use dart boards. Long story short -- you're out.

[smedindy]

It does have some presidence. Case was kept out of the football playoffs even though they had a 9-0 regional record because of a loss to Rochester. Again, a soulless technocrat could do the brackets if we wanted.

And again, win your league and you have no complaints.

[KnightSlappy]

It does have some presidence. Case was kept out of the football playoffs even though they had a 9-0 regional record because of a loss to Rochester. Again, a soulless technocrat could do the brackets if we wanted.

And again, win your league and you have no complaints.

I'd probably take Wesleyan's numbers even counting the Buffalo loss.

[onetinsoldier]

I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 

Remember, the committee isnt telling Wesleyan that they failed to meet certain criteria.  The committee could only pick 19 at large teams.  With all the upsets, the first 9-11 were probably pretty easy.  After that, they just have to go with the information at their disposal and hope they make the right choices. 

[KnightSlappy]

I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 

Like Lake Forest's .826 winning percentage and Illinois Wesleyan's .708 winning percentage?

No one's recommending wins be ignored at all, but winning percentage in a vacuum means nothing. SOS in a vacuum means nothing. They only each carry meaning when related to the other.

What we've learned is that the committee has no idea how to approach the idea of SOS.

[onetinsoldier]

I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 

Like Lake Forest's .826 winning percentage and Illinois Wesleyan's .708 winning percentage?

No one's recommending wins be ignored at all, but winning percentage in a vacuum means nothing. SOS in a vacuum means nothing. They only each carry meaning when related to the other.

What we've learned is that the committee has no idea how to approach the idea of SOS.

Knight, in the above example wouldnt the regional associate for the Midwest have some say in the process? 

And while Lake was ahead of IllWes in the final RR, its entirely plausible a loss to wheaton vs a loss to Carroll pushed the SOS so high that IllWes was pushed to 4th in the Midwest. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yes... the regional committee does have a say... by ranking teams in order as they will appear at the national committee. Thus, Lake Forest and IWU were already decided by the regional committees and only ONE of them would be at the national committee's table at a time - they would never be considered on the national landscape at the same time.

And I think the committees do have a sense of how to work with the SOS... but they also have to measure that against other factors. I have talked to many members on regional and national committees and they say the SOS has helped them better understand teams records and results... but when it comes down to the final spots in a region or selection... there is so much info to parsec and get right, that sometimes one thing may be outweighed by another (and again, we are guessing as to what was the determining factor on some of these things - it might not have been just one thing... it could be several other criteria).

[KnightSlappy]

Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.

[KnightSlappy]

Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.

National committee approves all rankings though, so it really is like "one committee". Shouldn't act like eight separate groups anyway.

[Knightstalker]

Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.

No, we weren't.  But, if I were a journalist, there are certainly some interesting questions that have come out of these selections that would be worth pursuing for a better understanding of the process.

I'll bet it was rock paper scissors.

Nah, that's too easy to figure out - had to be the new and improved rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iapcKVn7DdY

+K, but still too easy to comprehend for the NCAA.

[iwumichigander]

Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.

I think maybe hung up here on the "process".  The criteria is the same for regional and national committees; but, no where does the guidelines say the criteria are absolutes. If absolutes, you might as well use a computer program like Massey, let some machine make the decision and be done with it.
Within each region, some latitude exists in terms of process and how much 'weight' a regional committee may place on one criteria element may not be the same as another regional committee.

[KnightSlappy]

Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.

I think maybe hung up here on the "process".  The criteria is the same for regional and national committees; but, no where does the guidelines say the criteria are absolutes. If absolutes, you might as well use a computer program like Massey, let some machine make the decision and be done with it.
Within each region, some latitude exists in terms of process and how much 'weight' a regional committee may place on one criteria element may not be the same as another regional committee.

Exactly! Thanks for seeing things my way.

[onetinsoldier]

knight,
A computer formula would be a disaster, because then you have a huge fight over what to use.  lets look at a D1 bubble team: RPI has Oral Roberts 40, Sagarin has them 68th, pomeroy 89th.  All are respected formulas and its across the board.  And if you settle on one formula, then teams schedule solely to meet that formula.  Or worse, you penalize top teams in horrible conferences that get upset in conf tourney. 

[KnightSlappy]

knight,
A computer formula would be a disaster, because then you have a huge fight over what to use.  lets look at a D1 bubble team: RPI has Oral Roberts 40, Sagarin has them 68th, pomeroy 89th.  All are respected formulas and its across the board.  And if you settle on one formula, then teams schedule solely to meet that formula.  Or worse, you penalize top teams in horrible conferences that get upset in conf tourney.

I'm not necessarily saying you need to go the route of a Massey, Sagarin, Pomeroy, or RPI, strictly speaking, but if you did, what we be the problem with simply averaging the rankings of the systems? You wouldn't have to pick one. That's pretty much what the BCS does.

I'm OK with the NCAA defining criteria, as they do now, but I think the method by which they compare and weigh each criterion against the others should also be strictly defined (and followed).

And I'm not concerned with teams scheduling to "meet the formula", because the best way to do that would be to play tough teams, and to beat them.