Pool C

[realist]

We used to split sessions for the MIAA Tournament, which reminds me of just how poor attendance for our semi-final has become.

Negative bi-product of success. Too many fans just assume a Hope win in the semi-final and a 3rd meeting with Calvin in the final. Another contender or two would really help the conference... Will Dixon and Trine, can you help us out with this next year?

You might want to be careful what you ask for. 

[smedindy]

Since 2008, conferences that have benefited with the most Pool C selections

NESCAC  12
ODAC      11
CCIW      11
UAA          9
WIAC       9
NEWMAC  9
NCAC       7

The 68 selections represent 53% of all Pool C bids.


Teams with most Pool C selections
Illinois Wesleyan     5
Va Wesleyan           4
Wheaton                 4
WPI                         4
Amherst                   3
Brandeis                  3
Mary Hardin-Bay.     3
Middlebury               3
Stevens Point          3
Whitewater             3

We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.

[John Gleich]

Since 2008, conferences that have benefited with the most Pool C selections

NESCAC  12
ODAC      11
CCIW      11
UAA          9
WIAC       9
NEWMAC  9
NCAC       7

The 68 selections represent 53% of all Pool C bids.


Teams with most Pool C selections
Illinois Wesleyan     5
Va Wesleyan           4
Wheaton                 4
WPI                         4
Amherst                   3
Brandeis                  3
Mary Hardin-Bay.     3
Middlebury               3
Stevens Point          3
Whitewater             3

So, I looked at this and I asked myself:

How many National Titles from these?


I figured it would be more than it ended up being...

2008 - Wash U (A)
2009 - Wash U (A)
2010 - UWSP (A) - 2nd in the WIAC in the regular season
2011 - St. Thomas (A)
2012 - UW Whitewater (C) - 1st in the WIAC but upset in the tournament
2013 - Amherst (A)


Not from this time frame, but the 2003-04 UWSP team was an A (2nd in the WIAC in the regular season) as was the 2004-05 team (tied for 1st w/ Platteville in the regular season).

[madzillagd]

We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.

Have to say, this is funny because the complaint that NESCAC fans hear more often is that the NESCAC teams don't schedule a tough enough out of conference schedule.  Now you are saying they jimmy their schedule to do just that.  Personally I think the former is more accurate than the latter and Dave did a great job addressing this with Coach Hixon on Hoopsville earlier this year talking about Amhert's schedule and I know Coach Maker of Williams has addressed it as well.  With 2 weeks less practice time than everybody else, the initial games are usually against weaker opponents and typically the top NESCAC teams don't start playing more difficult opponents until well into December after they've been able to catch up with everyone else on practice.  Midd didn't follow that formula this year and they are watching the tournament instead of participating.

[sac]

The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country. 

[Pat Coleman]

Albertus Magnus is 99 miles away.

Yea, but that could be up to a 4 hour ride; the BQE, Cross Bronx, and CT Turnpike are brutal highways.

Metro North.

[AO]

We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.

Have to say, this is funny because the complaint that NESCAC fans hear more often is that the NESCAC teams don't schedule a tough enough out of conference schedule.  Now you are saying they jimmy their schedule to do just that.  Personally I think the former is more accurate than the latter and Dave did a great job addressing this with Coach Hixon on Hoopsville earlier this year talking about Amhert's schedule and I know Coach Maker of Williams has addressed it as well.  With 2 weeks less practice time than everybody else, the initial games are usually against weaker opponents and typically the top NESCAC teams don't start playing more difficult opponents until well into December after they've been able to catch up with everyone else on practice.  Midd didn't follow that formula this year and they are watching the tournament instead of participating.

The main complaint should be the lack of conference games, not the quality of the non-conference opponent. 

If the NESCAC beats 75% of their 165 non-conference opponents, they will have an SOS advantage of .05 over the MIAC who beat 91% of their 55 non-conference opponents assuming equal OOWP.   To match the SOS the MIAC got from winning 91% of their non-conference games, the NESCAC only has to win 64% of their non-conference games.

If the NESCAC was a poor conference they would be hurt by having more non-conference games, but since they are good it is an enormous advantage.

[madzillagd]

The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

A round robin would turn the NESCAC's world upside down and not sure if it would be for the good.  NESCAC teams are allowed to have 24 games on the schedule (including scrimmages - which means they don't do scrimmages because it counts against them).  A round robin would be 20 of those 24 games - leaving only 4 non-conference games for each team.  Most of the teams in the NESCAC are small rivalries so they play each other an additional nonconference game (The Little Three: Amh, Wes, Will for example; Col/Bates/Bow another).  That's 2 nonconference games taken up right there.   That leaves 2 non conference games to schedule which would most likely be a holiday travel tournament most teams play.  I have no idea how you would gauge NESCAC teams from year to year against the rest of the country for Regional Rankings etc. when they would only play 2 nonconference games. 

[booyakasha]

Madz, your point still holds, but if we played a double round robin in the NESCAC I doubt smaller subset of rivalries would elect to play for a third time during the season, so really back to 4 non conference games. Same issue though...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

A round robin would turn the NESCAC's world upside down and not sure if it would be for the good.  NESCAC teams are allowed to have 24 games on the schedule (including scrimmages - which means they don't do scrimmages because it counts against them).  A round robin would be 20 of those 24 games - leaving only 4 non-conference games for each team.  Most of the teams in the NESCAC are small rivalries so they play each other an additional nonconference game (The Little Three: Amh, Wes, Will for example; Col/Bates/Bow another).  That's 2 nonconference games taken up right there.   That leaves 2 non conference games to schedule which would most likely be a holiday travel tournament most teams play.  I have no idea how you would gauge NESCAC teams from year to year against the rest of the country for Regional Rankings etc. when they would only play 2 nonconference games.

A lot of conferences play an 18 game conference schedule.  The ASC has a 22-game conference schedule: 12 teams, full double round robin.  The NESCAC could pull it off.  I think I'd rather see a modified schedule for them, though (maybe 15 conference games).  It helps the region out quite a bit to have so many NESCAC non-cons for other teams to schedule.

[nescac1]

Yes, I am confident that if NESCAC teams played only four non-conference games, the narrative by some would be, NESCAC teams don't ever prove themselves against strong competition outside of their own conference, they are afraid to play non-NESCAC opponents, we can't know how good they really are! 

I can 100 percent guarantee, smedindy, that NESCAC teams do not "jimmy" their schedules to get Pool C bids.  I am not sure who this "we" is who purportedly suspects the NESCAC of doing so, but I have a feeling that it is likely the royal "we."  Guess what -- NESCAC didn't play a double round-robin prior to participating in the NCAA tournament, which makes the idea that simply maintaining the same conference schedule that they have played for decades is an attempt to "jimmy" anything flat-out laughable.  If NESCAC's primary concern was getting as many teams into the NCAAs as possible, then, as madzillagd alludes to, they would not start practice two weeks later, putting them at a competitive disadvantage for the first few weeks of the season and likely hurting the chances of teams on the margin to earn a Pool C.  That is by FAR the biggest difference between NESCAC and non-NESCAC schools, and it is a self-imposed competitive disadvantage rather than advantage. 

Here is the reality: Bowdoin is the first NESCAC team to receive a Pool C bid in the last, I don't know, ten years, maybe longer, that is even remotely questionable.  Colby and Wesleyan each had very strong records in recent years, yet didn't receive Pool C bids.  If there is evidence that NESCAC schools have received Pool C bids that were undeserving (beyond possibly one team this season), I'd like to see it.  The teams who have been receiving Pool C bids are Williams, Amherst, and Midd, which have been among the strongest teams in all of Division III over the past decade, would have earned Pool C (or A) bids playing in any conference in the country, and have proven they belonged in the tourney via deep tourney runs, including national championships.  So if NESCAC is trying to game the system, they are doing a damn poor job of it.

What is annoying is when justifiable criticisms of the NCAA selection criteria and bracketing methodology (and there are plenty of those) turn into attacks on NESCAC.  NESCAC neither chose the NCAA system, nor cares what that NCAA system is.  NESCAC does what is in the best interest of member institutions, and considering that most member insitutions rarely if ever smell the NCAA basketball tourney, the effect of scheduling policies on SOS plays no role whatsoever on how those policies are determined. 

As a Williams fan, I am really, really happy that Williams has developed regional rivalries with local schools like MCLA, Springfield, Southern Vermont, RPI, while also playing a full NESCAC slate plus two extra rivalry games vs. Amherst and Wesleyan, while still having a chance each year to take a road trip and test itself against quality out-of-region opponents like Loras, Hampden-Sydney, Randolph Macon, and Stevens.  I'd much rather play Stevens or even another local school than a second game vs. Colby, Tufts, or Conn College.  It makes for a more interesting schedule and a more varied experience for the players and fans alike.  As is, with the NESCAC tourney, Williams played 15 games vs. NESCAC opponents this year.  That is all of one fewer games vs. in-conference opponents than half the CCIW or NEWMAC teams faced.  But you don't see me (or any NESCAC fans) arguing that CCIW or NEWMAC (or any other conference) is somehow less legitimate because they somehow "jimmy" the system by not bringing more schools into the conference, or by not playing a full eight team conference tourney.  The CCIW and NEWMAC are entitled to do what is in the best interests of its member schools, just like NESCAC is. 

The only thing more predictable than the NCAA making inexplicable bracket choices is the annual whining here about NESCAC scheduling ...

[AO]

What is annoying is when justifiable criticisms of the NCAA selection criteria and bracketing methodology (and there are plenty of those) turn into attacks on NESCAC.  NESCAC neither chose the NCAA system, nor cares what that NCAA system is.  NESCAC does what is in the best interest of member institutions, and considering that most member insitutions rarely if ever smell the NCAA basketball tourney, the effect of scheduling policies on SOS plays no role whatsoever on how those policies are determined. 

I could care less how those scheduling policies are determined, the fact is they do have a large effect on the SOS and pool C selection.  We need better criteria to focus less on the very flawed SOS statistic and more on a national RPI so we can better judge the big wins each team had. 

I want the committee to be able tell the difference between a win over Babson and a win over Wash U, Illinois Wesleyan or Wheaton.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't think the point was about whether NESCAC teams are good enough to play in the tournament, I think it was more like whether their numbers would reflect that talent in the same way it does now.

I imagine the CCIW would get more Pool C bids (all of them justifiable) if they played once through rather than twice.

It is what it is.  I don't think the NESCAC does it on purpose (for bids), but it does help them get bids.  It's just reality.

I suppose you can imagine why that is frustrating to fans of teams from other conferences.

[nescac1]

But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.  I think New England teams are consistently underrated / undervalued here, and there is a midwest-centric viewpoint that is, at least among some posters, overly dismissive of lesser-known teams and conferences from New England, many of which are really good.  Are you really sure that Albertus Magnus isn't as talented as an upper-tier CCIW or OAC or MIAC team?  I have no idea, honestly, and Unlike in Division I, there just aren't enough inter-regional games on a year-to-year basis to have a clear picture of the relative value of the wins you cite as an example. 

I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve the current system.  I mean, at the very least, the NCAA could have easily switched two of the brackets this year so that it is not an east vs. west type deal, as many others have suggested.  And if they are going to use the "eye" test as they apparently claimed this year, they could have used it to create more equitable draws for certain teams, not just in regards to who made it into the tourney.

It's just annoying that somehow, these general complaints (again, among some posters) repeatedly and inevitably are conflated with  attacks on NESCAC, even to the point of claiming that NESCAC illegitimately games the system, which is simply untrue. 

[sac]

But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.  I think New England teams are consistently underrated / undervalued here, and there is a midwest-centric viewpoint that is, at least among some posters, overly dismissive of lesser-known teams and conferences from New England, many of which are really good.  Are you really sure that Albertus Magnus isn't as talented as an upper-tier CCIW or OAC or MIAC team?  I have no idea, honestly, and Unlike in Division I, there just aren't enough inter-regional games on a year-to-year basis to have a clear picture of the relative value of the wins you cite as an example. 

I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve the current system.  I mean, at the very least, the NCAA could have easily switched two of the brackets this year so that it is not an east vs. west type deal, as many others have suggested.  And if they are going to use the "eye" test as they apparently claimed this year, they could have used it to create more equitable draws for certain teams, not just in regards to who made it into the tourney.

It's just annoying that somehow, these general complaints (again, among some posters) repeatedly and inevitably are conflated with  attacks on NESCAC, even to the point of claiming that NESCAC illegitimately games the system, which is simply untrue.

I don't mean cherry pick to necessarily be an indication of what I think of Northeast basketball.  In the MidWest the CCIW has its choice of SLIAC/NACC and even MWV/IIAC teams that can make a schedule look better than it really is.  I think very highly of CCIW teams in general.   It just has an big affect on what some teams can do vs others.   Cherrypicking isn't just a Northeastern thing but comparatively to the rest of D3 they have quite a few more options for in-region games to begin with.