Pool C

[John Gleich]

I had Carthage in.  I always figured the Red Men would get the nod over Emory as low WP/high SOS & RRO options because of Carthage's win over Wash U, while Emory was 0-2 vs Wash U.

- Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
- Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

I thought that Wash U result was going to be the deciding factor in getting Carthage in.

But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 

Like others, I just feel frustrated with the lack of clarity around how the numbers were interpreted by the committee throughout the entire process.  Seems like so much inconsistency.  That Hoopsville interview with national committee chair Steve Ulrich was pretty disheartening.

I wonder if "#6 in the Midwest" vs "#2 in the South" factored in at all. I know it wasn't brought up in the least... but one of the things that was mentioned was that the committee tried to get the top two seeds in each region to host.

That, of course, would necessitate the top two regionally ranked teams in every region to get in.

I'll modify this for space to just take (up to) the top 3 seeds:

JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED

GREEN got Pool C bids

TEAM-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3. Staten Island	24-2, 24-2	CUNYAC	WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final
TEAM-EAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Plattsburgh State	21-4, 21-4	SUNYAC	WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final
TEAM-GREAT-LAKES	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Hope	18-5, 19-6	MIAA	WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final
TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3.Wesley	20-2, 22-2	CAC	LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDWEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Illinois Wesleyan	22-3, 22-3	CCIW	WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final
TEAM-NORTHEAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Williams	21-3, 22-3	NESCAC	WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final
TEAM-SOUTH	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
1. Randolph-Macon	20-5, 20-5	ODAC	LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal
2. Emory	17-7, 17-7	UAA	LOST at Rochester 97-83
TEAM-WEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. UW-Whitewater	22-3, 22-3	WIAC	WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final

Every other #1 and #2 was in the tourney, as shown above.

Had Emory not gotten in, then the #2 seed in the South wouldn't have gotten in the tournament... and they wouldn't have had an opportunity to host.

And the statement was made that the top two seeds in every region got to host (that's at least what the committee tried to do and thus why Emory got to host).

This may be a stretch (getting to the level of a conspiracy theory, I'm willing to admit) but I wonder if Emory either just grew on the committee (due to familiarity) or if in the end an additional criterion was introduced (ranked higher in their region) and this got Emory in.

[ronk]

I had Carthage in.  I always figured the Red Men would get the nod over Emory as low WP/high SOS & RRO options because of Carthage's win over Wash U, while Emory was 0-2 vs Wash U.

- Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
- Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

I thought that Wash U result was going to be the deciding factor in getting Carthage in.

But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 

Like others, I just feel frustrated with the lack of clarity around how the numbers were interpreted by the committee throughout the entire process.  Seems like so much inconsistency.  That Hoopsville interview with national committee chair Steve Ulrich was pretty disheartening.

I wonder if "#6 in the Midwest" vs "#2 in the South" factored in at all. I know it wasn't brought up in the least... but one of the things that was mentioned was that the committee tried to get the top two seeds in each region to host.

That, of course, would necessitate the top two regionally ranked teams in every region to get in.

I'll modify this for space to just take (up to) the top 3 seeds:

JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED

GREEN got Pool C bids

TEAM-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3. Staten Island	24-2, 24-2	CUNYAC	WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final
TEAM-EAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Plattsburgh State	21-4, 21-4	SUNYAC	WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final
TEAM-GREAT-LAKES	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Hope	18-5, 19-6	MIAA	WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final
TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3.Wesley	20-2, 22-2	CAC	LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDWEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Illinois Wesleyan	22-3, 22-3	CCIW	WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final
TEAM-NORTHEAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Williams	21-3, 22-3	NESCAC	WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final
TEAM-SOUTH	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
1. Randolph-Macon	20-5, 20-5	ODAC	LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal
2. Emory	17-7, 17-7	UAA	LOST at Rochester 97-83
TEAM-WEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. UW-Whitewater	22-3, 22-3	WIAC	WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final

Every other #1 and #2 was in the tourney, as shown above.

Had Emory not gotten in, then the #2 seed in the South wouldn't have gotten in the tournament... and they wouldn't have had an opportunity to host.

And the statement was made that the top two seeds in every region got to host (that's at least what the committee tried to do and thus why Emory got to host).

This may be a stretch (getting to the level of a conspiracy theory, I'm willing to admit) but I wonder if Emory either just grew on the committee (due to familiarity) or if in the end an additional criterion was introduced (ranked higher in their region) and this got Emory in.

They didn't try very hard-Scranton in Mid-Atlantic and Richard Stockton in Atlantic are #2s who aren't hosting; South has 3 hosts and some western regional has 3 hosts, also.

[Pat Coleman]

South actually has four: Emory, UT-Dallas, Randolph-Macon and Virginia Wesleyan.

[mwunder]

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.

Sorry...got blown out in the second round.  My mistake.

[bopol]

I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.

Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

"Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

"But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."

That's a pretty deep conversation to have with a seven-year old.

[Hugenerd]

I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.

Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

"Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

"But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."

And there's the rub. If we had switched schedules. I'm not arguing that Middlebury should have gotten a bid this year. With a 17-9 record, the Panthers had plenty of opportunities (Williams twice, Amherst once, games we led at the half) to get that signature win (or two), which could have earned a trip to the tournament. It didn't happen. Ok. But when the difference is the out-of-conference schedule that is played, that sends a message, and I think it's an unfortunate one. I love the jamboree tournaments that Hoopsville and D3hoops puts on. I would much prefer to see Middlebury play a competitive game against Plattsburgh than a snoozer of a win over whomever. But the NCAA is sending a different message, and I think that's unfortunate.

And as much as I'm happy for the Bowdoin program to experience an NCAA tournament, as much as I like the respect that signals for the NESCAC, I can't honestly say that Bowdoin deserves a selection over Middlebury (or over any of the other teams that might deserve it over the Panthers--Stevenson(!), William Patterson--I just use Midd as a comparison because there is such a strong baseline by which to do so). Maybe one can argue criteria and say, it is what it is. And I can accept that. But this seems to be a case where even the criteria is not applied correctly, and the message that is received through the bids granted (as opposed to the lip service we hear) is that it pays to play it safe. If you're in a tough conference, load up on cupcakes before January.

I think the frustration for a lot of people, which was evident with those on the air yesterday (Pat and Dave), is that not only was potentially the wrong message conveyed, but it was not consistently applied.  For some teams, SOS got them in (Emory, Springfield, etc.), while others were severely penalized for lacking SOS (Staten Island), but for others it didnt really seem to matter (Bowdoin had a 0.503, to Middlebury's 0.571 and Middlebury had the head-to-head, etc.).  It seemed like, in addition to the official criteria, there was a bunch of tertiary criteria that was applied, that are no where in the official selection guidance.  By tertiary criteria I mean criteria that could be rationalized as the 'eye test,' such as: i) 9-10 losses are too many to get an at-large bid (but not 8), ii) an SOS less than 0.500 precludes a team from at-large consideration, iii) vRRO is a completely subjective criteria that can be interpreted in any way desired to rationalize inconsistency from the selection committee (including rationalizing why a low number of RRO results should benefit a team from a less represented conference in the regional rankings - Dickinson - while in other cases vRRO was the deciding tiebreaker).  Note that the Bowdoin selection doesn't make any sense based on all these arguments, because they had a 'low' SOS (especially for the NESCAC that only has 10 required league games) at 0.503 and had 3 of their 4 RRO results (all 3 losses) because of the conference they were in AND there was a team in their conference that beat them head-to-head, had a much higher SOS (0.571 vs. 0.503), had 5 additional RRO results (3-6 vs. 1-3), had a higher RRO win percentage, but had 4 additional losses and 0.15% lower WP mainly due to the fact that they had a more difficult schedule (although, some of those losses were against teams they should have beat).

After listening to last night's discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the 'eye test' is not in-fact a test adminestered by being intimately familiar with a given team by watching them play (I know many of you have offered to send game tapes) and comparing them subjectively to another team (which is also completely inappropriate), but what was really meant is that overall records and SOS' were eyeballed and that subjective criteria excluded certain teams from at-large consideration.

[bopol]

By the way, I think Stevenson should have been ahead of Dickinson for the following reasons: SU's SOS was higher (slightly, but still), they ended up having a 4-4 or 5-5 vRRO (according to what they were told by a RAC member today) compared to Dickinson's 2-1, they had played at least one team regionally ranked in the final week and Dickinson played none.

I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.

I understand why Dickinson probably made the tournament, but I think the Mid-Atlantic Region screwed up... and from what I am gathering it is a mess on the RAC. If the RAC had been smart, they would have put Stevenson or even Christopher Newport ahead of Dickinson... from the stand-point that if Dickinson's resume was good enough to get into the tournament - even late - then the other team's resume (which is arguable better) could have gotten that team in first. Imagine if CNU or Stevenson is on the board and is selected and then Dickinson enters the fray and gets the selection at arguable the same spot late in the process. They didn't give themselves the best opportunity to get multiple teams in because I promise you while the RAC rewarded Dickinson's 2-1 vRRO... the national committee probably got stuck on that criteria and would have looked differently at a 4-4 or whatever Stevenson and CNU brought to the table. They also may have looked at the "results" instead of the winning percentage.

By the way, we probably saw this in the Atlantic Region as well, because I bet Staten Island was the first team to the table and blocked William Paterson from ever having a chance (arguable who had the better resume - at least WP played regionally ranked teams).

And by the way, I see that across the board. This is a conversation I plan to dive into even more with some people... because I think some voices are not preaching the right argument and some voices are being quiet because they have no clue - and I think the Mid-Atlantic region and each conference has some soul searching to be done and raise some hard questions with their RAC members.

Keep on this.  At the very least, it'll get the current committee thinking about the process and transparency and hopefully they'll do a better job in the future.

[CardsFan]

So what we learned yesterday is that the entire process is inconsistent. As others have said, SOS mattered in some cases and not in others. Inconsistency leads to suspicion even when none should be there. On the surface, it doesn't look good when a somewhat qualified Dickinson team gets in over a Stevenson or CNU when the head of the committee is the commissioner of the Centennial Conference. I do not believe that anything wrong happened with that, but on the surface it doesn't look great.

This inconsistency is going to mess with the product if certain teams (Stevenson) really try to alter how they schedule. Coaches won't have any idea how the committee wants them to schedule and that will lead to more mistakes. Stevenson could change their schedule and next year the committee will value different things. It dilutes the product if the message gets out that teams in strong conferences will be penalized for their vRRO being mainly from conference opponents.

Also, I'd like to see the "eye-test" have some part in the selection process. Selection cannot be all numbers or all eye-test. It would have to be impartial people for each region watching the teams throughout the season. I don't know how it would all work, but I think there needs to be a balance.

[smedindy]

I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent. And to slam them for their conference isn't fair. It's their conference. Yeah, they shouldn't have lost to a horrific team, but in conference play and tournaments weird stuff happens.

Plus, why WOULDN'T Staten Island play NJAC teams? Why WOULDN'T they play ST. Joseph. That's makes perfect sense for them.

[7express]

So what we learned yesterday is that the entire process is inconsistent. As others have said, SOS mattered in some cases and not in others. Inconsistency leads to suspicion even when none should be there. On the surface, it doesn't look good when a somewhat qualified Dickinson team gets in over a Stevenson or CNU when the head of the committee is the commissioner of the Centennial Conference. I do not believe that anything wrong happened with that, but on the surface it doesn't look great.

This inconsistency is going to mess with the product if certain teams (Stevenson) really try to alter how they schedule. Coaches won't have any idea how the committee wants them to schedule and that will lead to more mistakes. Stevenson could change their schedule and next year the committee will value different things. It dilutes the product if the message gets out that teams in strong conferences will be penalized for their vRRO being mainly from conference opponents.

Also, I'd like to see the "eye-test" have some part in the selection process. Selection cannot be all numbers or all eye-test. It would have to be impartial people for each region watching the teams throughout the season. I don't know how it would all work, but I think there needs to be a balance.

I know in the division 1 process, a person has to leave the room when they bring up the team they work for (if their an AD) and I believe the conference they work for (if their a commissioner).  I definitely know ADs have to leave the room when their school comes up in the division 1 selection, not sure about the commissioners however, but I would think it's the same in division 2 and division 3.

[CardsFan]

I'm pretty sure the committee member of a school does have to be out of the room when their team is being discussed. It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings. Criteria needs to be followed the same way for all teams, otherwise it seems like a coin flip as to who gets in on SOS and who gets in on win %.

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, they do have to be off the call.

[KnightSlappy]

It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings.

Dickinson (21-6): .778 / .529 / 1-1
Stevenson (19-8): .704 / .530 / 4-4

Keeping Dickinson ahead of Stevenson is not clearly incorrect. Dickinson won two more games against the same SOS. Sure, you want to bump Stevenson up for the RRO, but it's not immediately clear that it should make up for the difference in winning percentage (remember: SOS already indicates their schedules are equally difficult).

I'm very sympathetic to the idea that vRRO is a form of double-counting the SOS. I'm fine with using it as a sort of tiebreaker that shouldn't be placed on equal footing with WP and SOS.

[AO]

I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent. And to slam them for their conference isn't fair. It's their conference. Yeah, they shouldn't have lost to a horrific team, but in conference play and tournaments weird stuff happens.

Plus, why WOULDN'T Staten Island play NJAC teams? Why WOULDN'T they play ST. Joseph. That's makes perfect sense for them.

The slamming was mainly coming from the Staten Island fans.  Dave made one comment about the CUNYAC being terrible after being sworn at multiple times.   It doesn't matter how much I like how they chose their opponents, the numbers aren't biased. 

[sac]

I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.