Pool C

[WUPHF]

Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384

It looks like he is earning karma posthumously.

[KnightSlappy]

I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

You also have to remember that the way Knightslappy is calculating SOS (based on the explanation on the page linked above), is not the way the NCAA is doing it.  Therefore, despite Knightslappy having Midd slightly ahead, when the NCAA comes out with their numbers, RIC could still be ahead.  I think we all agree that the way the NCAA is doing it is incorrect currently (because the home/away multiplier essentially cancels out), but they are still going to be using their numbers when they are making decisions.

I did change my numbers to match the NCAA, so my calculation method is the same.

[KnightSlappy]

I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.

However, Tufts being ranked would not affect the vRRO this week, it would only be considered in next week's rankings.  Thats why there are no vRRO the first week, they only take into account RRO from previous weeks (the same reason why the win over Plattsburgh did not give them a vRRO win last week and will this week).

Do we know this though? I know it's not displayed on the regional data sheet PDF, but that's because they (i.e. the regional data sheets) are generated prior to the RAC call.

I know there's some ambiguity as to whether or not the RAC's re-consider the teams dynamically or not; I don't think the NCAA has provided a clear answer.

[ziggy]

I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.

However, Tufts being ranked would not affect the vRRO this week, it would only be considered in next week's rankings.  Thats why there are no vRRO the first week, they only take into account RRO from previous weeks (the same reason why the win over Plattsburgh did not give them a vRRO win last week and will this week).

Do we know this though? I know it's not displayed on the regional data sheet PDF, but that's because they (i.e. the regional data sheets) are generated prior to the RAC call.

I know there's some ambiguity as to whether or not the RAC's re-consider the teams dynamic or not; I don't think the NCAA has provided a clear answer.

If there is in fact a week lag then the "final" regional rankings do not include all the data they should. Unless of course they force those results in as well, then it is a consistency of process issue.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We do know that vRRO is based on the previous regional rankings... not the ones that come out the current week. There is no way for committees to know how a team has done versus an opponent who gets ranked for the first time AFTER the regional rankings are compiled. The data a regional committee is basing decisions on are based through Sunday's games. That means SOS, WP, vRRO and everything else are through Sunday. They then don't ask the other committee might rank teams to add more vRRO decisions and data. In fact, committees won't know how teams are finally ranked until all committee members (except the chairs) vote online after their conference calls on Tuesday morning.

[Hugenerd]

I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

You also have to remember that the way Knightslappy is calculating SOS (based on the explanation on the page linked above), is not the way the NCAA is doing it.  Therefore, despite Knightslappy having Midd slightly ahead, when the NCAA comes out with their numbers, RIC could still be ahead.  I think we all agree that the way the NCAA is doing it is incorrect currently (because the home/away multiplier essentially cancels out), but they are still going to be using their numbers when they are making decisions.

I did change my numbers to match the NCAA, so my calculation method is the same.

Ok, thanks.  I read the explanation at the top of your page and it still sounded the same as before, but I either could have read it wrong or it could have not been updated yet.

[Pat Coleman]

But to expand on Dave's point, I believe the committee chairs have said in the past that for the final selection call, all of that information is then pulled in and considered.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yes... the final selection information, the information is updated to reflect all data accordingly and thus why the national committee tends to make changes on the final regional rankings more often than during the previous weeks.

[ziggy]

But to expand on Dave's point, I believe the committee chairs have said in the past that for the final selection call, all of that information is then pulled in and considered.

This is reassuring, hopefully they take it a step further and use it to tweak final regional rankings, as they have the power to do. [edit: which Dave has indicated is the case]

I can live with "once ranked, always ranked" but "ranked too late, never ranked" wasn't going to sit well with me.

[KnightSlappy]

I'm to the point where I'd just rather go back to QoWI.

The more I learn the more I realize that we have (some/many) poorly conceived criteria implemented in poorer ways and considered differently year-to-year.

[Titan Q]

I've updated this with KnightSlappy's SOS numbers - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html.  All data below is through Sunday, 2/17.


(Losses from Saturday and Sunday are noted)

Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.578/4-3
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.554/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-5 (.762)/.566/4-3
4. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.564/6-4
5. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 19-3 (.864)/.527/3-2
6. Emory (South, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.554/4-4
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.549/3-3 
8. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.534/1-2
9. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.512/4-2
10. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-5 (.800)/.544/3-1
11. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.541/3-1
12. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
13. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.557/3-5
14. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.506/3-1  *lost vs Salisbury*
15. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.567/3-6  *lost vs Wash U*
16. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-6 (.760)/.531/3-1
17. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.534/2-3
18. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2   *lost @ St. Vincent*
19. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.544/2-4
----------
20. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.533/1-4
21. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.524/1-4
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.538/2-2
23. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 18-4 (.818)/.499/1-1
25. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 20-5 (.800)/.499/1-2
26. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-7 (.696)/.545/1-7
27. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.504/1-3
28. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
29. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.541/2-3
30. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.512/0-3
31. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.485/2-3  *lost @ Randolph-Macon*

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Tier one:
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.571/6-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.538/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.567/7-2  *lost vs Case Western Reserve*
4. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.584/7-2
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.558/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.540/5-2
7. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.550/7-2
8. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.526/2-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1  *lost @ DePauw*
11. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 21-4 (.840)/.545/4-2
12. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.519/3-1
13. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-3 (.864)/.520/2-2
14. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
15. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.530/3-2  *lost @ St. John Fisher*
16. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.531/3-2
17. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.512/3-2

Tier two:
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
21. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-2 (.913)/.492/2-1  *lost @ Sage*
22. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
23. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.533/1-2
24. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.562/1-2
25. Hobart (East, LL) - 18-6 (.750)/.537/0-4


Let me know if you find errors in data or if something looks out of whack.

[KnightSlappy]

How did you deal with Randolph-Macon?  I think they could be ranked in the South this week. Obviously they have WP issues, but they have one of the stronger SOS out there. They intrigue me greatly.

[Titan Q]

How did you deal with Randolph-Macon?  I think they could be ranked in the South this week. Obviously they have WP issues, but they have one of the stronger SOS out there. They intrigue me greatly.

Well, I only dealt with teams that were regionally ranked in week 1 or week 2...so I actually never looked at Randolph-Macon. 

Great SOS, and that 12 games played vs RR really stands out...but .625 just seems to low to really be in the Pool C mix in my opinion.

* Randolph-Macon (South, ODAC) - 15-9 (.625)/.568/4-8

[Mr. Ypsi]

VaWes is now the #1 seed in the ODAC tourney.  If you call them the Pool A team, how high would Hampden-Sydney be in your Pool C list?

[Titan Q]

VaWes is now the #1 seed in the ODAC tourney.  If you call them the Pool A team, how high would Hampden-Sydney be in your Pool C list?

Good catch...just adjusted above.