Pool C

[ronk]

Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Those computations will be left with the students as an exercise.

[Greek Tragedy]

Greek,
  With all due respect to Knightslappy's objective data, my interest was in our subjective opinions on what the regional rankings "should" be.

So, what do you think it should be? 

[KnightSlappy]

Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Also -- for the sake of bookkeeping -- I believe the OWP and OOWP components (after home/road weighting) are computed using the average of each team's component percentages, not the sum of the W/L totals. So:

If you played two teams who provide you with respective component OWP's of 5-5 (.500) and 20-0 (1.000), your OWP for these two combined woule be (1.000 x 0.500 / 2 = 0.750) not 25-5 (.833).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just a quick note in case anyone is curious... neutral games are considered 1.0 on the weighted scale and the weighted scale is used on OWP AND OOWP.

[John Gleich]

Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

blah blah, long post

Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?

If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:

blah blah other long post

And to make myself clear, in no way was I comparing my subjective thoughts to Knightslappy's strict objective results by the numbers.  I actually posted my thoughts in the West Region board and then copied to the appropriate Pool C board here.

Right. I wasn't saying you were. I actually wasn't, either. I was just taking data that was available that some might try to use to refute what you had there and put it into its proper context.

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

[KnightSlappy]

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

[John Gleich]

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

Perhaps subjective is the wrong word... but I'm not sure what the right word would be.

The adjustments that need to be made due to head-to-head matchups, for example... what would you call those, if not subjective? The different regions treat the different criteria differently based on their interpretation... which is, by nature, subjective.

[John Gleich]

By the way, I'm not trying to disagree with you... I think we're ultimately saying the same thing. We're just using language, of which our postmodern culture has watered down and stripped true and absolute meaning.   

[AO]

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

[Greek Tragedy]

Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?

[AO]

Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?

Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule? 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?

Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.

[Greek Tragedy]

Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings. 

[Greek Tragedy]

Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?

Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.

There has been complaints that the NESCAC doesn't play a full round robin...maybe because they are "too big".  But, the MIAC has 11 teams and they play a full round robin.  The MWC has 11 teams as well, they don't play a full round robin, but they play an unbalanced schedule to make an 18-game conference schedule.

[AO]

Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings.

I'd think for a lot of teams the conference tournament is the most difficult portion; you're facing teams who are either in the top 4 or are in a "win or go home" situation.  Teams also tend to be stronger at the end of the schedule versus the start barring injuries to star players.  There's not enough uniformity in scheduling or play across regions to claim that any objective ranking system is going to come up with the best at-large bids.  Subjectivity can go past the numbers to analyze the true strength of schedule.