Pool C

[Ralph Turner]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

[Hugenerd]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

Also, I clearly remember the criteria being open to interpretation, something like, "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" not winning percentage.  Its essentially the same thing as "signature" wins in D1.  You've shown that you can beat good teams.  If you have split games with the 5 teams ahead of you in the rankings (hypothetically) it shouldnt hurt you that your WP is 0.500 against those teams, it should help show that you are as good as them and capable of beating them.

[Titan Q]

The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?

[Hugenerd]

Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?

Correctly calculating weighted SOS may also be a plus.

[KnightSlappy]

The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?

Yes, I believe they mentioned that on Hoopsville tonight - there will be no "in-region" vs "out of region" for anything.

70% for almost everybody is basically your conference schedule, plus a couple more.  It's 18 games in a 25 game schedule.  Completely doable for everyone.

For Hope and Calvin it means getting those games in Chicago counted in-region, which can make a big difference.

[Mr. Ypsi]

For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count.  That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! )

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I'm not sure how you'd get non basketball people on the committee given its make-up - but I was thinking about it from the other way.  If you've got people trying to stick to the data, but the criteria is vague, you run into trouble.  When you've got a committee of people who know basketball, there is an internal sense of which criteria is most important when judging.

He mentioned the scenario with Hanover being 3-0 against Transylvania.  You have to choose how you interpret the data there - and knowing the scene, the type of season Transy put together overall, helps.

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count.  That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either!

It also prevents other teams from gaming the system by playing over their head out of region.  You gain the experience without risking your post-season chances.  That won't happen anymore.  You're reward for playing tough competition.

Randolph-Macon, it seems like, may have gotten in without winning the ODAC Championship because they valued that kind of scheduling pretty highly this year.

[KnightSlappy]

The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).

Can they do this though? It doesn't sound like they're re-evaluating whether or not Team A's .550 SOS is really better than Team B's .530 SOS.

[sac]

For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count. That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! )

Only if we find 3 in-region games Mr Y.


btw does anybody know if the 70% is for just the regular season or does it include the post-season.

For instance:
A 25 game regular season is 17.5 or 18 in-region games
A 28 game season w/post-season is 19.6 or 20 in-region games

Which are you going to be required to have?

(yes I know your conference tournament would likely put you over either threshold anyway)

[Greek Tragedy]

I would think the logical answer would be the regular season since you can't really predict how many post season games you'd play.  And, as you said, the post season would be conference tourney games anyway (aside from the UAA) so those would be in-region anyway.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).

Can they do this though? It doesn't sound like they're re-evaluating whether or not Team A's .550 SOS is really better than Team B's .530 SOS.

I'm not sure. They used to have a lot of leeway in the secondary criteria, but I haven't read the handbook in a couple years.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.