Pool C

[KnightSlappy]

Numbers are updated through Sunday:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

[Ralph Turner]

My South regional ranking projection (thru 3 Feb), with regional and overall records, and also SoS:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2     .520    POOL A BID
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3     .550     POOL A BID
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3     .529     POOL A BID
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4     .556    POOL C BID (Wash U leads the UAA)
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     .547    POOL C BID  (UMHB leads the ASC)
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3     .512   POOL B/C
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5     .542    POOL C BID  (H-SC leads the ODAC)
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6     .511     POOL C BID (H-SC leads the ODAC)

Looks good!  Close enough for us the follow.




Wrong!  Rochester leads the UAA!  Emory, Deis and WashU are tied for second at 6-3!

Sorry !

[Titan Q]

Numbers are updated through Sunday:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

Awesome.  Thanks for all you do on this!

[KnightSlappy]

My South regional ranking projection (thru 3 Feb), with regional and overall records, and also SoS:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2     .520    POOL A BID
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3     .550     POOL A BID
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3     .529     POOL A BID
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4     .556    POOL C BID (Wash U leads the UAA)
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     .547    POOL C BID  (UMHB leads the ASC)
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3     .512   POOL B/C
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5     .542    POOL C BID  (H-SC leads the ODAC)
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6     .511     POOL C BID (H-SC leads the ODAC)

Looks good!  Close enough for us the follow.

I think Texas-Dallas will get ranked instead of Virginia Wesleyan but everyone else looks close. I'd bet on UMHB getting the top spot.

Randolph-Macon needs more wins, but they've played a tough schedule! 6 of their 8 losses have come against teams that will be regionally ranked come Wednesday. And a seventh, Randolph, may not be too far off the bottom of the South rankings.

[nescac1]

Interesting that in the New England numbers provided by KnightSlappy, Amherst is ranked below Brandeis, Williams, and RIC teams it beat, particularly Brandeis and RIC. 

I'd imagine the New England rankings will go something like this:  1. WPI, 2. tie ... Amherst/Williams/Midd (really, you could justify any order of these three), 5. RIC, 6. Brandeis, 7. MIT, 8. Curry.  Outside of the top four, and MAYBE RIC if it runs the table but loses late in the Little East tourney, I can't see any of these times earning an at-large big. 

[algernon]

If I understand correctly, KnightSlappy, the wRPI ranking you've presented is a starting point for the NCAA committee.  Is that right?  How does the NCAA go from your wRPI ranking:

Reg.    Rank    Team    Conference    WP    wSOS    wRPI    Nat.    Pool    Status    REG    D3    vRRO    OVR
SO    1    Mary Hardin-Baylor    ASC    0.857    0.580    0.649    6    A    C     18-3    18-3    0-0    18-3
SO    2    Concordia (Texas)    ASC    0.778    0.555    0.611    23    C    8    14-4    14-4    0-0    16-5
SO    3    Randolph-Macon    ODAC    0.600    0.609    0.606    28    C    11    12-8    13-8    0-0    13-8
SO    4    Hampden-Sydney    ODAC    0.882    0.508    0.602    33    A    wC    15-2    18-2    0-0    19-2
SO    5    Guilford    ODAC    0.722    0.542    0.587    46    C    24    13-5    14-5    0-0    16-5
SO    6    Christopher Newport    USAC    0.824    0.506    0.585    48    A    bub    14-3    15-3    0-0    15-3
SO    7    Emory    UAA    0.737    0.523    0.577    58    C    32    14-5    14-5    0-0    14-5
SO    8    Texas-Dallas    ASC    0.714    0.528    0.574    64    C    37    15-6    15-6    0-0    15-6
SO    9    Centre    SAA    0.714    0.506    0.558    86    B    1    10-4    10-4    0-0    15-4
SO    10    Lynchburg    ODAC    0.706    0.507    0.557    89    C    56    12-5    16-5    0-0    16-5
SO    11    Virginia Wesleyan    ODAC    0.688    0.511    0.555    92    C    59    11-5    14-5    0-0    14-6

to something like this:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2   
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3         
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3         
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4   
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3   
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5   
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6   

Are the criteria that alter the numbers-based wRPI ranking the same as these selection criteria for the 2010-11 tournament?

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
• 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 selection.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• 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.

[KnightSlappy]

The committee never comes up with an RPI number. They don't use any mathematical combination of the criteria; they're simply looking at winning percentage, SOS, results versus regionally ranked opponents, head-to-head results, and results versus common opponents individually for each team.

My wRPI number is 0.25 x WP + 0.75 x wSOS -- they don't actually use this.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

FYI - The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.

[algernon]

The committee never comes up with an RPI number. They don't use any mathematical combination of the criteria; they're simply looking at winning percentage, SOS, results versus regionally ranked opponents, head-to-head results, and results versus common opponents individually for each team.

My wRPI number is 0.25 x WP + 0.75 x wSOS -- they don't actually use this.

So they don't actually start with an wRPI or any other formula.  Thanks for the clarification of what happens.

[Greek Tragedy]

FYI - The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.

Anyone know how to tap a phone?   

[Titan Q]

National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

[KnightSlappy]

National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

I wonder how the makeup of coaches affects the rankings. I would imagine that if Team A and Team B had very similar WP, SOS and the like, but Team A beat me soundly and Team B never played me, that I would be more inclined to vote Team A ahead of Team B.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That's why there are a number of coaches... not just one LOL.

[KnightSlappy]

That's why there are a number of coaches... not just one LOL.

Right, but in the GL it's only six, and I don't believe the chair votes. That's not a lot of votes.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

I wonder how the makeup of coaches affects the rankings. I would imagine that if Team A and Team B had very similar WP, SOS and the like, but Team A beat me soundly and Team B never played me, that I would be more inclined to vote Team A ahead of Team B.

That's why I typically wait until the first rankings are released before trying to make predictions.  The criteria is obviously the same every year, but the committees are always unique in the ways they use it and prioritize it.  Once we have one set of rankings it becomes easier to see what this particular group is going to do with the data this year.