Pool C

[Greek Tragedy]

JUST POOL C TEAMS and teams that have games today

GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

RED POOL C

TEAM-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Staten Island	24-2, 24-2	CUNYAC	WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final
William Paterson	20-5, 20-5	NJAC	WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
Rutgers-Newark	19-7, 19-7	NJAC	LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal
Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)	20-5, 20-5	SKY	WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final
TEAM-EAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Plattsburgh State	21-4, 21-4	SUNYAC	WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final
Geneseo State	19-5, 20-5	SUNYAC	WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal
NYU	16-8, 16-8	UAA	at Brandeis 3/2
Skidmore	16-9, 16-9	LL	LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal
TEAM-GREAT-LAKES	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Hope	18-5, 19-6	MIAA	WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final
Bethany	20-4, 21-4	PAC	LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals
Mount Union	20-5, 20-5	OAC	LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal
DePauw	17-7, 18-7	NCAC	WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28
Wittenberg	19-6, 19-6	NCAC	WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final
Ohio Wesleyan	19-6, 19-6	NCAC	WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Wesley	20-2, 22-2	CAC	LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal
Dickinson	20-5, 20-5	CC	WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final
Stevenson	18-7, 18-7	MACC	WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final
Messiah	19-5, 19-5	MACC	LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal
St. Mary's (Md.)	15-7, 18-7	CAC	LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDWEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Illinois Wesleyan	22-3, 22-3	CCIW	WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final
Augustana	19-6, 19-6	CCIW	LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal
Carthage	15-8, 16-9	CCIW	LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal
Chicago	14-9, 15-9	UAA	LOST vs Washington U. 86-73
TEAM-NORTHEAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Amherst	22-3, 22-3	NESCAC	WON vs Trinity (CT) 80-62; vs Williams in Final 3/2
Williams	21-3, 22-3	NESCAC	WON vs Middlebury 78-75; vs Amherst in Final 3/2
Babson	20-5, 20-5	NEWMAC	LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal
Eastern Connecticut	20-5, 20-5	LEC	WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final
WPI	22-3, 22-3	NEWMAC	LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1
Springfield	18-6, 19-6	NEWMAC	WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; vs MIT in Final 3/2
Bowdoin	19-5, 19-5	NESCAC	LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal
Nichols	20-5, 20-5	CCC	WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1
Middlebury	16-8, 17-8	NESCAC	LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal
TEAM-SOUTH	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
Randolph-Macon	20-5, 20-5	ODAC	LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal
Emory	17-7, 17-7	UAA	LOST at Rochester 97-83
Virgina Wesleyan	18-6, 19-6	ODAC	WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; WON vs Washington and Lee 74-60; vs Hampden-Sydney in Final 3/2
Texas-Dallas	22-3, 22-3	ASC	WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; WON vs Texas-Tyler 103-83; vs Hardin-Simmons in Final 3/2
Centre	17-3, 20-4	SAA	WON vs Berry 77-60; WON vs Rhodes 64-61; vs Olgethorpe in Final 3/2
Birmingham-Southern	16-9, 16-9	SAA	WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70
Guilford	17-8, 17-8	ODAC	LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal
Trinity (TX)	16-9, 16-9	SCAC	WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs WON Colorado College 64-48;vs Centenary in Final 3/2
TEAM-WEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
UW-Stevens Point	24-1, 24-1	WIAC	WON vs Platteville 66-47; vs Whitewater in Final 3/2
UW-Whitewater	22-3, 22-3	WIAC	WON vs La Crosse i76-73; at Stevens Point in Final 3/2
St. Thomas	21-4, 21-4	MIAC	WON vs Bethel 74-59; vs St. Olaf in Final 3/2
St. Olaf	20-5, 20-5	MIAC	WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; vs St. Thomas in Final 3/2
Dubuque	18-4, 21-4	IIAC	LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal
C-M-S	17-3, 19-5	SCIAC	LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal
Pomona-Pitzer	18-5, 18-7	SCIAC	LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal
Augsburg	18-7, 18-7	MIAC	LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal

[/quote]

[KnightSlappy]

15. DePauw* (NCAC) (18-8) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
17. St. Olaf (MIAC) (21-5) - .808/.543/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm

I still think you're being too harsh on St. Olaf and over-weighting vRRO. This is a perfect comparison because these two have played the same number of D3 games, they have the same SOS and they have the same number of vRRO losses.

Does the fact that three of DePauw's wins happened to be against RRO outweigh the fact that St. Olaf won three more games (against an evenly ranked schedule)?

[carthage guy]

wow... if carthage does get in D3 has come a long way in picking its tournament team   I played on a 18-7 cciw team and didnt get in.. back in the day

[Titan Q]

15. DePauw* (NCAC) (18-8) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
17. St. Olaf (MIAC) (21-5) - .808/.543/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm

I still think you're being too harsh on St. Olaf and over-weighting vRRO. This is a perfect comparison because these two have played the same number of D3 games, they have the same SOS and they have the same number of vRRO losses.

Does the fact that three of DePauw's wins happened to be against RRO outweigh the fact that St. Olaf won three more games (against an evenly ranked schedule)?

That could be true - who knows.  But St. Olaf's 1 win vs RRO is the lowest total of any Pool C candidate that will be on the table in this process.  For me, that number jumps off the page and really hurts St. Olaf.

Also keep in mind, we're comparing St. Olaf right now vs teams with final resumes.  If St. Olaf losses this afternoon, their WP falls to .778.  I see them right at the end of the bubble, but this certainly is anything but an exact science.

[wooscotsfan]

Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter?   This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?

[Titan Q]

Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter?   This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?

You are just factoring one criterion - winning percentage.  On the other two biggies, Carthage has a huge advantage over Staten Island.

- Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   
- Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   

[KnightSlappy]

Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter?   This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?

You are just factoring one criterion - winning percentage.  On the other two biggies, Carthage has a huge advantage over Staten Island.

- Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   
- Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0

Carthage's SOS is 2nd in the country. Staten Island's is 312th.

[wooscotsfan]

I certainly understand that SOS and RRO are weighed as well because I didn't start posting yesterday.    In my opinion, when one team has won 10 more games than the other and lost 6 fewer, that should trump the rest of the factors.

The NCAA selection may not agree with my reasoning and we will find out on Monday how they view it.

[kiltedbryan]

Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.

[wooscotsfan]

Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.

kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.

[KnightSlappy]

I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

It's not really your fault if no one else in your conference is any good, and you're already getting penalized with a weak SOS. You can try to schedule tough in the non-conference, but if you don't happen to hit on one of the few teams that gets ranked, you're SOL.

I can see it being in the secondary criteria, but it's not actually very informative once you already know a school's WP and SOS.

[kiltedbryan]

Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.

kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.

Yeah, fair enough. Staten Island and Carthage definitely represent nearly exactly opposite resumes to the committee.

If they're sitting on the same table together in the later rounds of the selection process, you'll have Staten Island with probably the best WP but lowest SOS, and Carthage with the worst WP but highest SOS.

Based on Titan Q's projection, though, Staten Island may face the challenge of even getting to the table - he has two Atlantic Region teams - William Patterson and Rutgers-Newark - firmly on the bubble, but slotted ahead of Staten Island. A lot could depend on where SI ends up in the final Atlantic region rankings. Can't get selected if you never even make the table.

Carthage, by comparison, looks like they should be sitting at the table for awhile, once Augustana is cleared out ahead of them. I tend to think that being at the table for awhile can only help you.

[KnightSlappy]

Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.

kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.

I think your point is a fair one. I've been arguing that the NCAA isn't consistent from year-to-year on how they weigh these factors.

WPI didn't get in in 2012 with a .720 WP and a .585 SOS (3-3 vRRO)
Keene State didn't get in in 2012 with a .708 WP and a .573 SOS (3-5 vRRO)

NYU DID get in in 2012 with an .800 WP and a .494 SOS (2-2 vRRO)
Birmingham-Southern DID get in in 2012 with a .917 WP and a .441 SOS (0-0 vRRO)

[David Collinge]

I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw

The NCAC has four regionally ranked teams (highlighted, assumes they all stay ranked this week). They play a full double round-robin, and they all advanced to the conference semifinals. The semifinal winners (Wooster, Witt) thus had 8 vRROs among this group, and the losers 7. Back those out, and you are left with
Wooster 1-0 (Wheaton)
Ohio Wesleyan 0-0
Wittenberg 0-1 (Wheaton)
DePauw 0-1 (WashU.)
Makes a difference, doesn't it?

[sac]

I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw

The NCAC has four regionally ranked teams (highlighted, assumes they all stay ranked this week). They play a full double round-robin, and they all advanced to the conference semifinals. The semifinal winners (Wooster, Witt) thus had 8 vRROs among this group, and the losers 7. Back those out, and you are left with
Wooster 1-0 (Wheaton)
Ohio Wesleyan 0-0
Wittenberg 0-1 (Wheaton)
DePauw 0-1 (WashU.)
Makes a difference, doesn't it?

Hope = 6 before and after

Yes