Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

[HOPEful]

Some thoughts about the Pool C selections:

Winning does matter if your SOS is reasonably solid.  The lowest Win % to be selected was Emory at .680 with a very high SOS.

Lowest win % gets a BYE, we don't get to see the super secret, final, regional rankings and we don't get to see the voters process or rational for their decisions... This is an improvement how? Where's the accountability? Who can tell me how William Patterson, Stevenson, Carthage and DePauw are left on the table when Bowdoin gets picked?! Eye test?! Past years preformances?!

As a Hope fan, I am elated to be hosting.

As a D3 basketball fan, I am very disappointed. Worst of all, there is no system in place or accountability that would lead me to believe that next year will be any different...

[bopol]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.

I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament.  They're clearly better now than they were at the beginning of the season, but they lost games they had no business losing and the team of March 3 is paying the price for the team they were two months before.

I'm fine with that.

I also didn't think Bowdoin had a shot - and clearly they got in.

I didn't think Staten Island deserved to get in after the conference tourney loss - that happened.

I feel like Dickinson should have dropped more after their conference tournament loss.  They should have been behind at least Stevenson.  I'm not sure Stevenson's numbers add up to get in, but they sure pass the eye test for me.  That's a better team, with a lot of potential.  It's unfortunate they missed out.

But then again, I also thought (and still do think) Chicago was a better team than Emory, so you have that for the quality of my eye test.

I think you're right that it can be expressed better.  The committee wants you to schedule as many games against good teams as you possible can out of conference.  They don't particularly care how many you play within your conference, so long as you play some out of conference.

Assuming some consistency for next year (which is a big assumption at this point) that should at least give teams real guidance.

And for teams in good conferences, schedule one or two decent non-cons, but not too many or else your strong conference will hurt your winning percentage too much to get chosen (that seems to be how Bowdoin got in and Carthage was left out).

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Does the committee get any financial compensation from the NCAA for the work they do? Since they're always worried about money, I'm sure they could get a group from the d3board here that's at least as knowledgeable as the current committee is for half their cost and produce twice the quality

[AO]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.

I still haven't seen if the committee actually considers the relative strength of the regionally ranked wins.  Surely it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Dickinson's regionally ranked wins were against teams below them, while Carthage's wins against Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan, Wash U and Calvin should give them a large boost beyond simply saying they have 2 more regionally ranked wins.

[KnightSlappy]

You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

This is exactly what I got out of it. You can certainly justify Emory being ranked highly and getting the bye using certain criteria. You can certainly justify Carthage not getting in using certain criteria.

But I have a harder time accepting both at the same time, if you're applying the criteria consistently across the board.

It almost seemed like they picked the field they wanted, and THEN went back and justified it using the criteria.

[ziggy]

I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament. 

I'll be the next to say the same. Might not count for much now but I got the $10 to prove that this was a pre-selection announcement opinion. Thanks KnightSlappy.

I just never felt Carthage had as many wins as they needed. Great SOS and a lot of games against regionally ranked teams, but that winning percentage would be historically low for a Pool C.

Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.

[CCHoopster]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

See the MAC Commonwealth who gets 1 team in each year which is absurd. 3rd toughest SOS in the nation this year. I guess so long as the NESCAC and ODAC get their teams and host sites the snotty, pencil sharpeners are ok with that.

[KnightSlappy]

I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament. 

I'll be the next to say the same. Might not count for much now but I got the $10 to prove that this was a pre-selection announcement opinion. Thanks KnightSlappy.

I just never felt Carthage had as many wins as they needed. Great SOS and a lot of games against regionally ranked teams, but that winning percentage would be historically low for a Pool C.

But the question isn't Carthage in a vacuum. I don't think anyone would argue that their resume necessarily had to be a slam dunk inclusion.

The question is how does that go with what the regional rankings were saying all along? Carthage was ahead of Rose-Hulman in the final public rankings, even though RHIT was 0.800/.515/2-1 (basically the Dickinson resume).

And how does that go with Emory being selected as, basically, one of the top 16 teams in the tournament?

It seems like either (1) Carthage is out and you have no qualms about sending the Emory pod to Centre or (2) Emory hosts the pod and Carthage gets in as a Pool C.

[KnightSlappy]

I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

See the MAC Commonwealth who gets 1 team in each year which is absurd. 3rd toughest SOS in the nation this year. I guess so long as the NESCAC and ODAC get their teams and host sites the snotty, pencil sharpeners are ok with that.

The MACC just didn't have a team with a Pool C resume. I don't think there's a slight here. I thought it was perfectly reasonable for Dickinson to stay ahead of Messiah/Stevenson. I'm really not even sure why there's a question here.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It seems like they were trying to treat each region equally as well, when it comes to hosting.

The Emory thing is bunk, though.  They could have sent them on the road.  Maybe they felt it was inappropriate for the best team in a pod not to host.  Dumb, but at least say it.

They clearly thought RMC and VWC were the best in the South - they hosted.

Emory gets it, I think, because the committee believes they're better than Centre and they didn't realize how many people have google maps.

[HOPEful]

I"Emory gets it, I think, because the committee believes they're better than Centre and they didn't realize how many people have google maps."

Haha!

[mwunder]

Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.

I'm not surprised that Carthage didn't get in, but comparing them to North Central, who they beat twice this season and who didn't even make the conference tourney is kinda silly isn't it?  North Central has two wins against teams in the tournament.  Carthage has 4.

To be honest, this isn't even Carthage's worst tournament snub...that came back in 2003 when they tied for the conference championship at 11-3 and were 19-6 overall and got passed over for an Aurora team that got blown out in the first round.

[Pat Coleman]

Aurora won in the first round in 2003, then lost to an Elite Eight team.
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/2003/2003-bracket

Hard to compare these tournaments to the 48-team tournaments, though. Just not the same when you're dealing with seven or so Pool C bids.