Pool C

[wally_wabash]

This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

It doesn't happen in an NCAA board room either. 

[Ralph Turner]

Can you fly to VA and AL in less than five hours from MI? If you have a private jet, yeah. But you're at the mercy of airline schedules and connecting flights. Never fun.

riding a bus for 5 hours sounds like a lot of fun too....

Any trip to Sul Ross State. 

University of the Ozarks, or Mississippi College and Louisiana College to the ASC-West schools.

Trinity to Austin College or to Centenary in the SCAC

[smedindy]

Depending on where you play in VA or AL, you're looking at a bus ride to the airport + flight + waiting + flight + bus ride to the college or hotel.

[Pat Coleman]

This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

True. Because MIT isn't a D-I school.

Hugenerd, this Spanish major/journalist/social media guy didn't understand any of that but, OK. Interesting. And wouldn't be the first time that the NCAA has taken a reasonable idea and implemented it poorly!

[Ethelred the Unready]

My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin , had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?

Guys, don't miss the point here. This isn't about Calvin specifically

Wait....what?  I'm out.....

[Hugenerd]

This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

True. Because MIT isn't a D-I school.

Hugenerd, this Spanish major/journalist/social media guy didn't understand any of that but, OK. Interesting. And wouldn't be the first time that the NCAA has taken a reasonable idea and implemented it poorly!

I'll give it one more shot at explaining it more clearly.  The point of the home away multiplier is to make a road game worth more than a home game in the SOS calculation.  With the Raw Ws and Raw Ls format, the multiplier no longer works that way if you use the same multipler for both Raw Ws and Raw Ls.

For example, if Team A has only played one team this season (for simplicity) and that team has a 1-1 record.  Team A's OWP is going to be 0.5 no matter where the game was played because:

Raw Ws = 1 * multiplier = multiplier
Raw Ls = 1 * multipler = multiplier

OWP = Raw Ws / (Raw Ws + Raw Ls) = multiplier / (multiplier + multiplier) = multiplier/ (2* multiplier) = 1/2

The multiplier completely cancels out in this extremely simplified example.  Which I think we can all agree is absolutely wrong.  Also, note that, although this is an extremely simplified example, the equation should work in any circumstance.  In any field of science, the first smell test to any equation is whether it collapses to the result you expect under simplifying conditions (unless there is some known condition where it will fail, such as division by 0).  If the SOS calculation doesn't work for the simplest possible situation (a team that played one game against a team that is 1-1), how can we expect it to work and be meaningful for a much larger set of games.  The metric just is not meaningful, its essentially a regression to the QOWI.


If you actually want to make a road game worth 2/3 more than a home game (which I believe is the motivation for the 1.25/0.75 multiplier), you can't just have a single multiplier for road games or home games, you have to have a different multiplier for road Raw Ws and road Raw Ls and the same for home games.  For example the multiplier for road Raw Ws should be 1.25 and for road Raw Ls should be 0.75.  Similarly, the multiplier for home Raw Ws should be 0.75 and for home Raw Ls should be 1.25.  Neutral court games would have a 1.0 multiplier for both.  Note that by doing this, you are saying that playing a team on the road is more difficult (the multipliers increase the value of that road opponents wins and decreases the value of the losses: for example, playing a 16-4 team on the road is like playing a 20 - 3 team on a neutral court) and playing a team at home is easier (the multipliers now decrease the value of that home opponents wins and increases the value of the losses: for example, playing a 16-4 team at home is like playing a 12 - 5 team on a neutral court).

Let's revisit the same, very simplified example.

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent on the road, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 1.25 = 1.25
Raw Ls = 1 * 0.75 = 0.75

OWP = 1.25/(1.25+0.75) = 0.625

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent on a neutral site, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 1.0 = 1.0
Raw Ls = 1 * 1.0 = 1.0

OWP = 1.0/(1.0 + 1.0) = 0.500

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent at home, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 0.75 = 0.75
Raw Ls = 1 * 1.25 = 1.25

OWP = 0.75/(0.75 + 1.25) = 0.375


Now we see that by using these multipliers, you get the expected result, which is a higher OWP for the game played on the road, than a game played on a neutral court or at home.  Further, the ratio between the road OWP and the home OWP is 0.625/0.375 = 1.66, which is expected given the multipliers of 1.25 road/0.75 home (1.25/0.75 = 1.66). Hence, a road game is valued 2/3 more than a home game, as is the intent of the multipliers to begin with.  This seems like what the NCAA had in mind, but their application of a single multiplier to both Raw Ws and Raw Ls was incorrect and results in SOS values that don't follow trends that make any rational sense.

[magicman]

My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

I either stay up really late (I was up until 12:30 when I work at 6 am) and/or get up really early (up at 4:30) to avoid such situations!   

I just stay up all night for about 2 days in a row and then catch up with some sleep on the 3rd day.

[algernon]

After catching up on the recent discussion on this thread regarding the new SOS formula, I can onbviously say that I hadn't thought about the new formula deeply enough initialy.  And, although I understand the NCAAs intent behind the new formula, I agree with Knightslappy and others that it was implemented incorrectly and is just flat out wrong.  I know there have been numerous examples of how you can come up with illogical SOS trends, or have the multipler cancel out given the proper circumstances, but the root of all these examples, I believe (although I could be wrong, it is late right now) is that the way the multipliers are used in the new method dont make any sense to begin with.  The whole point of the multiplier is to give credit because it is harder to win on the road than it is at home and, vice-versa, it is easier to lose on the road than it is at home.  Therefore, why do you use the same multiplier for both Raw wins and Raw losses for an opponent (examples to come, if this isnt clear)? Take the case of calculating an OWP for a team who has played a single opponent on the road, at home, or on a neutral court with a 0.500 record (I know Knightslappy has already shown this).  It doesnt matter how many games they have played, 1-1, 5-5, 100-100, you get the same weighted OWP regardless of where the game was played (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.5; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.5....the same is true no matter how many games they played for this single opponent).  It seems that the weighting factor should not be equal for Ws and Ls, to make an away game count for more than a home game (which is the intent of the factor to begin with, it seems). For example, if you played a team on the road, use a multiplier of 1.25 for that teams wins and 0.75 for that teams losses, and if you played that team at home you would use 0.75 for wins and 1.25 for losses to come up with Raw Ws and Raw Ls.  In this case, the example I showed previously for calculating an OWP for a team with a single opponent would result in the following: (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.375; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.625).  This seems more in line with the true intent of the weighting factor.

With that said, here a two approaches to improve the SOS calculation, given what my assumptions about the intent of the NCAA are, then you guys can go to town on why these are also terrible ideas:

Assumption 1:  NCAA wants to weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to adjust for the difficulty of away games vs. home games (hence the 1.25/0.75 multiplier).

Assumption 2: NCAA wants to also weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to take into account the number of in-region games that opponent has played.


Simplest approach:  Just do a weighted average OWP and OOWP. 
For simplicity, just take the case an OWP calculation for a team that has played 4 opponents:
Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team

1.Original method (1.25/1.0/.75 weighting, averaged over all games)
(0.75*1.25+0.80*0.75+0.50*1.0+0.20*.75)/4 games= 0.549 OWP

In this method, you dont take into account at all that your road game against a 0.750 team has only 4 games played that 'count,' while you have played other teams with a lot more games.  It seems that the NCAA feels Game 1, in this example, is being emphasized too heavily and artifically bring up the OWP.  Therefore, thw proposed #2 below, which actually causes the OWP to increase even more!

2.New 'Incorrect' Method:
(check my math): Raw Ws =23.25, Raw Ls = 16.25, OWP = 0.589

In this case, Game 2 gets over-emphasized because they have the most in-region games, especially the way the multipliers are implemented (which seems incorrect).

3.Weighted Average (weighted by total number of opponents games):

Here, you calculate each teams' raw OWP as you would in 1 above, but you weight each team by the number of region games. If every one of your opponents had the same number of region games, #1 above and this method would be equivalent.

[(0.75*1.25)*4 games+(0.80*0.75)*20 games+(0.50*1.0)*12 games+(0.20*.75)*10 games]/46 games = 0.505 OWP

Because the SOS is weighted by games, the win against the 3-1 team doesnt count as much as the other games, because that opponent only has 4 games played that 'count.' 


More complex approach: Use unequal scaling factors (Home and Away scaling factors are different for Ws and Ls, eg 0.75/1.25 and 1.25/0.75, respectively), as I mentioned in the first paragraph, and continue calculating Raw Ws and Raw Ls like the NCAA is doing now.  With the previous example, this would result in:

Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team   (Scaling 1.25/0.75)  Raw Ws: 3.75, Raw Ls: 0.75
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25) Raw Ws: 12, Raw Ls: 5
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team (Scaling 1.0/1.0)    Raw Ws: 6, Raw Ls: 6
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25)   Raw Ws: 1.50, Raw Ls: 10

OWP: 23.25/45 = 0.517

You end up with something closer to the game-weighted approach in #3 above.

So very well-stated!  I think that the Weighted Average approach is the correct statistical method to accomplish the stated goals.  I don't understand why the NCAA would use the formula that d-Mac has presented, if that is actually what they do, as it would make no sense at all, as it effectively knocks the "home/away" factor out of the equation (while purporting to include it).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.

[Hugenerd]

Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.

Without a multiplier, that method is equivalent to calculating a game-weighted average.  Raw Ws would just equal the sum of all opponents wins and Raw Ls would be the sum of all opponents losses.

In the previous example, without scaling factors:
Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team

NCAA approach:
Raw Ws = 27, Raw Ls = 19, OWP = 27/46 = 0.587

Game-Weighted Average
OWP = [(0.75)*4+(0.80)*20+(0.50)*12+(0.20)*10]/46 = 27/46 = 0.587


The home/away mutliplier is what is incorporated incorrectly in the basketball OWP calculations.  This could be easily solved by including the multiplier in the game-weighted average approach (from a previous post):

Home/Away and Game-Weighted Average
OWP = [(0.75*1.25)*4 games+(0.80*0.75)*20 games+(0.50*1.0)*12 games+(0.20*.75)*10 games]/46 games = 0.505

[Greek Tragedy]

ATL
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
2	1	Old Westbury	SKY	20-1, 21-3	BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 119-80; at Sage 2/16
1	2	Ramapo	NJAC	18-2, 20-3	BEAT Richard Stockton 74-64; LOST at William Paterson 61-60
5	3	Rutgers-Newark	NJAC	17-6, 18-6	BEAT Kean 79-62
4	4	Ricard Stockton	NJAC	17-5, 17-5	LOST at Ramapo 74-64; BEAT Rowan 79-64
3	5	SUNY-Purchase	SKY	17-5, 17-5	BEAT  NYU-Poly 92-59; WON at SUNY-Maritime 71-41; vs. St. Joseph (L.I.) 2/16
EAST
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	Rochester	UAA	19-2, 20-2	BEAT Carnegie Mellon 81-77; vs. Case Western Reserve 2/17
2	2	SUNY-Cortland	SUNYAC	19-2, 19-3	BEAT New Paltz State 87-47; LOST at Plattsburgh St. 80-77; at Potsdam St. 2/16
3	3	Stevens	E8	18-3, 20-3	WON at Alfred 67-55; at St. John Fisher 2/16
5	4	Hobart	LL	15-6, 16-6	WON at Rochester Tech 72-57; BEAT Clarkson 74-66; vs. St. Lawrence 2/16
n/a	5	Plattsburgh St.	SUNYAC	15-6, 15-7	BEAT Potsdam State 92-69; BEAT Cortland State 80-77; vs. Oswego State 2/16
n/a	6	Ithaca	E8	14-7, 15-7	BEAT Houghton 85-72; LOST to Utica 69-66; vs. Nazareth 2/16
		DROPPING OUT
4	n/a	NYU	UAA		BEAT Washington U. 86-82; vs. Chicago 2/17
6	n/a	SUNY-Geneseo	SUNYAC		WON at Fredonia St. 94-80; vs. Buffalo St. 2/16
GT LK
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	Wooster	NCAC	19-3, 19-3	WON at Allegheny 86-64; at DePauw 2/16
2	2	Ohio Wesleyan	NCAC	17-4, 17-5	BEAT Wabash 79-64; at Denison 2/16
3	3	Thomas More	PrAC	19-2, 20-3	BEAT Bethany 73-69; at St. Vincent 2/16
n/a	4	Capital	OAC	17-4, 17-6	BEAT Muskingum 75-68; vs. Ohio Northern 2/16
5	5	St. Vincent	PrAC	16-3, 18-5	BEAT Waynesburg 67-59; vs. Thomas More 2/16
4	6	Calvin	MIAA	16-1, 20-3	BEAT Trine 61-59; vs. Olivet 2/16
		DROPPING OUT
6	n/a	Marietta	OAC		WON at Mount Union 93-81; at John Carroll 2/16
MID-ATL
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
4	1	Alvernia	MACC	19-4, 19-4	BEAT Hood 70-59; at Messiah 2/16
1	2	Catholic	LAND	17-3, 20-3	WON at Goucher 71-43; vs. Moravian 2/16
3	3	St. Mary's (Md.)	CAC	16-2, 21-2	LOST at Salisbury 72-71; vs. Mary Washington 2/16
2	4	Albright	MACC	18-5, 18-5	WON at Lycoming 90-87; at Elizabethtown 2/16
5	5	Wesley	CAC	16-2, 19-5	vs. Salisbury 2/16
6	6	Scranton	LAND	17-6, 17-6	WON at Moravian 71-66; at Goucher 2/16
8	7	Cabrini	CSAC	17-4, 19-5	WON at Marywood 81-56
n/a	8	DeSales	MACF	17-5, 18-5	BEAT Wilkes 82-74; vs. Eastern 2/16
n/a	9	Dickinson	CC	15-6, 17-6	WON at Gettysburg 61-58; at Franklin and Marshall 2/16
		DROPPING OUT
7	n/a	Arcadia	MACC		WON at Lebanon Valley 77-61; at Widener 2/16
9	n/a	Frank & Marsh	CC		BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-54; vs. Dickinson 2/16
MW
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	Illinois Wesleyan	CCIW	17-3, 20-3	vs. Millikin 2/16
4	2	Washington U.	UAA	17-4, 18-4	LOST at NYU 86-82; at Brandeis 2/17
3	3	Wheaton (IL)	CCIW	15-5, 18-5	vs. Carthage 2/16
5	4	North Central (IL)	CCIW	18-3, 20-3	vs. North Park 2/16
2	5	Transylvania	HCAC	17-4, 18-5	LOST to Hanover 73-70; vs. Bluffton 2/16
6	6	Rose-Hulman	HCAC	20-2, 21-2	LOST at Earlham 68-66; at Hanover 2/16
7	7	Augustana	CCIW	15-7, 16-7	at Elmhurst 2/16
8	8	St. Norbert	MWC	16-5, 16-5	BEAT Ripon 57-52; at Illinois College 2/16
NE
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	WPI	NEWMAC	22-1, 22-1	LOST at MIT 69-60; at Clark 2/16
2	2	Amherst	NESCAC	21-2, 21-2	WON at Middlebury 104-101 3OT; vs. Colby 2/16
3	3	Williams	NESCAC	18-3, 20-3	BEAT Trinity (Conn) 68-47; vs. Bates 2/16
4	4	Middlebury	NESCAC	18-1, 21-1	LOST to Amherst 104-101 3OT; vs. Wesleyan 2/16
5	5	RIC	LEC	20-3, 20-3	WON at Western Connecticut 69-60; at Keene State 2/16
7	6	MIT	NEWMAC	16-4, 17-4	BEAT Clark 69-44; BEAT WPI 69-60; vs. Wheelock 2/17
6	7	Brandeis	UAA	16-6, 16-6	BEAT Chicago 75-56; vs. Washington U 2/17
10	8	Springfield	NEWMAC	16-7, 16-7	BEAT Clark 57-55; at Wheaton (Mass) 2/16
8	9	Curry	CCC	16-6, 16-6	LOST at Eastern Nazarene 100-80; WON at Endicott 88-68; vs. Wentworth 2/16
9	10	Westfield St.	MASCAC	17-4, 19-4	WON at Framingham State 77-59; vs. Fitchburg State 2/16
11	11	Eastern Conn.	LEC	15-4, 15-7	WON at Mass-Dartmouth 78-59; BEAT Keene State 93-84; vs. Mass-Boston 2/16
12	12	Albertus Magnus	GNAC	20-2, 20-3	WON at Coast Guard 87-82; BEAT St. Joseph's (Maine) 76-66; at Johnson and Wales 2/16
SOUTH
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	Ham-Syd	ODAC	17-2, 21-2	LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 78-77; at Emory and Henry 2/16
2	2	MHB	ASC	20-3, 20-3	LOST to Howard Payne 75-73; vs. Sul Ross State 2/16
5	3	Emory	UAA	15-6, 15-6	BEAT Case Western Reserve 106-87; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/17
6	4	Vir. Wes.	ODAC	14-5, 17-6	WON at Hampden-Sydney 78-77; vs. Lynchburg 2/16
4	5	Concordia (TX)	ASC	16-4, 18-5	BEAT Sul Ross State 115-92; vs. Howard Payne 2/16
3	6	Chris Newport	USAC	14-5, 15-5	BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 93-67; at Averett 2/16; at Ferrum 2/17
n/a	7	Randolph	ODAC	13-4, 19-4	WON at Lynchburg 58-49; at Randolph-Macon 2/16
n/a	8	Texas-Dallas	ASC	17-6, 17-6	BEAT University of the Ozarks 67-50; vs. LeTourneau 2/16
		DROPPING OUT
7	n/a	Lynchburg	ODAC		LOST to Randolph 58-49; at Virginia Wesleyan 2/16
8	n/a	Guilford	ODAC		BEAT Emory and Henry 73-65; at Bridgewater (Va) 2/16
WEST
RNK1	RNK2	TEAM	CONF.	REG/OVERALL	SCHEDULE
1	1	St. Thomas	MIAC	23-1 ,23-1	BEAT St. Olaf 62-57
3	2	Stevens Point	WIAC	19-4, 19-4	WON at Stout 76-74 OT; vs. Eau Claire 2/16
4	3	Whitewater	WIAC	18-4, 19-4	WON at Oshkosh 75-58; vs. River Falls 2/16
2	4	Whitworth	NWC	19-3, 20-3	WON at Linfield 86-53; at Williamette 2/16
6	5	Buena Vista	IIAC	16-6, 17-6	WON at Wartburg 71-61; vs. Coe 2/16
5	6	Stout	WIAC	17-5, 18-5	LOST to Stevens Point 76-74 OT; vs. Oshkosh 2/16
9	7	Con-Moorhead	MIAC	17-6, 17-7	vs. Gustavus Adolphus 2/16
n/a	8	Whitman	NWC	13-6, 16-7	WON at Williamette 82-68; at Linfield 2/16
7	9	Augsburg	MIAC	17-6, 17-6	BEAT Macalester 88-64; at St. Mary's (MN) 2/16
		DROPPING OUT
8	N/A	Luther	IIAC		BEAT Coe 60-54 OT; vs. Wartburg 2/16

[ziggy]

Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.

Maybe for Division III but that is not true NCAA-wide. Division I uses SOS (as it is a component of RPI) and uses the standard calculation as KnightSlappy (and others) have advocated for. DI does use H/A multipliers but it is applied to WP.

This brings up another question: why can't the NCAA implement a single method across all divisions? After all, DI down to DIII all use WP and SOS, it is just that DI puts it into RPI and DIII uses them separately as primary criteria. There are reasons the numbers should be used differently based on philosophical differences between the divisions, but that should only influence how the numbers are used, not how they are calculated.

[Greek Tragedy]

Lota of debate in the WIAC board about Stout's chances of earning a Pool C bid. Most of us think they are pretty good. Taking a very quick glance, I think they look like being taken around the 10-12 mark, obviously with no upsets. What do you experts think?

[Titan Q]

Regarding UW-Stout, recently I posted the following about Pool C from last year:

Last year, after the bracket was announced, I tried to project the order the Pool C's were taken.  Post #3866 here...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855

There were 19 Pool C's picked (same as this year).  I guessed that the last 7 in were...

(in-region winning %/in-region SOS/in-region results vs regionally ranked)

Round 13 - St. Mary's, .739/.557/1-3
Round 14 - Illinois Wesleyan, .708/.541/3-6
Round 15 - Randolph-Macon, .783/.515, 3-2
Round 16 - Gustavus Adolphus, .731/.526/2-2
Round 17 - New York U., .800, .494, 2-2
Round 18 - St. Joseph's, .875, .470, 0-2
Round 19 - Birmingham-Southern, .920/.443/0-0

I projected that the teams left sitting at the table when the music stopped were:

(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 - I think we later guessed that some other NE team was ranked higher in the region
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3

And in regards to Wheaton, said:

I'd consider Wheaton virtually a Pool C lock at .739/.573/4-4 vs regionally ranked.

UW-Stout's numbers -- 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4

Stout is a very competitive Pool C candidate, but I'm not sure I'd describe the chances as "pretty good", and I don't think I'd say rounds 10-12.  Rounds 10-12 are where I see Wheaton right now, and Wheaton is in better Pool C shape than Stout.  I see Stout more in the 16-18 range...something like that.  They could really use more than just that 1 win vs regionally ranked to feel better about things.  Of course, Stout's total number of games played vs regionally ranked (5 now) is going to help vs other bubble teams.

I should also note, when I refer to spots "10-12" or "16-18", I'm budgeting for the regular amount of conference tournament upsets, where presumed Pool A teams steal Pool Cs.  This might account for the difference in how Greek Tragedy are I are looking at UW-Stout right now (he said, "obviously with no upsets").

Just my take.

[Greek Tragedy]

That doesn't leave much room for error then! Stout will get an extra game than Wheaton with the Blue Devils playing a quarterfinal game next week and both will play a regionally ranked opponent in the semis (if Stout gets that far).

Thanks Bob.