Pool C

[AO]

For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed

Not for the better.

They've basically just made any game against Nebraska Wesleyan meaningless.  That makes some sense as teams like Nebraska Wesleyan could have an inflated win% in the very few region games they play, but that brings up the bigger question of the stupidity of throwing the results of the rest of their games out the window to start with.  Isolationism might result in more in-region/d3 games but it doesn't result in awarding the best teams with the Pool C.

[Pat Coleman]

For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed

Not for the better.

They've basically just made any game against Nebraska Wesleyan meaningless.  That makes some sense as teams like Nebraska Wesleyan could have an inflated win% in the very few region games they play, but that brings up the bigger question of the stupidity of throwing the results of the rest of their games out the window to start with.  Isolationism might result in more in-region/d3 games but it doesn't result in awarding the best teams with the Pool C.

It's always been that way, with the exception of (I believe) last year. This is not as big a change as it seems.

[KnightSlappy]

Are they doing the same thing for the OOWP too?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.

[KnightSlappy]

So now we're living in a world where (either all home or all road games):

Calvin 16-1
Transyvania 17-4
Finlandia 2-8
Thiel 11-7

would give you a better SOS than

Calvin 16-1
Transyvania 17-4
John Carroll 10-12
Wittenberg 12-7

even though just

Finlandia 2-8
Thiel 11-7

would give you a worse SOS than just

John Carroll 10-12
Wittenberg 12-7

[ziggy]

From the Great Lakes board:

I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?

[sac]

From the Great Lakes board:

I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?

This process is also saying a 16-2 team from the CCIW is the same as a 16-2 team from the AMCC.

[AO]

Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.

FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

[AO]

From the Great Lakes board:

I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?

This process is also saying a 16-2 team from the CCIW is the same as a 16-2 team from the AMCC.

not true.  this problem existed before, and is mostly solved through the AMCC's poorer OOWP.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.

FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.

[AO]

Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.

FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.

run your numbers again.  The difference is in weighing more heavily the games against teams with larger numbers of regional games.

[KnightSlappy]

Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.

FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.

run your numbers again.  The difference is in weighing more heavily the games against teams with larger numbers of regional games.

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

[sac]

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

[AO]

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

You don't take away part of a hit if the opposing team played fewer games.

[Pat Coleman]

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

You also don't take away part of a hit if the opposing team played fewer games.

I like this for non-sequitir of the day ...