Pool C

[blue_jays]

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.

Pick your battles, that's a bad comparison. Last 10 years: Wheaton 196-80 (.710) vs. Babson 124-138 (.473). Wheaton also just got done playing one of, if not the toughest schedules in the country this year, which they consistently do most years. Nice try though.

[AO]

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'm not talking about using the eye test.  I'm talking about using more of the data such as margin of victory like Massey uses.  We don't have as many inter-regional games as d-1, but that doesn't mean we should disregard the data that we do have.

I'm not attacking the NESCAC, just using them as an example of how the current selection process is flawed.  I only expect teams and conferences to act in their best self-interest.  It is up to the NCAA to provide the proper incentives to schedule challenging games.  I don't even really dislike how the NESCAC schedules games, it just shouldn't give them the automatic boost that it does.

[HOPEful]

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.

Pick your battles, that's a bad comparison. Last 10 years: Wheaton 196-80 (.710) vs. Babson 124-138 (.473). Wheaton also just got done playing one of, if not the toughest schedules in the country this year, which they consistently do most years. Nice try though.

Massey agrees that Wheaton had the toughest schedule in the country this year. In contrast, Babson ranked 179th, right after Bethel and before Austin.

[nescac1]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!). 

[AO]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

[AmherstStudent05]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

[AO]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

I'd definitely support using the d3 hoops poll as a selection criteria.  Easily better than a SOS with a multipler that rewards easy home games and punishes tough away games.

[smedindy]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

It's not predictive per se - it's a metric. And like any prediction it can go awry. And in a one-and-done format, things happen. Upsets happen. That's why there are percentages. And the highest ranked Massey team isn't always the favorite in his prediction analysis on a given day due to home/road swings and other metrics (offense / defense).  If Massey says a team has a 60% chance of winning, that's just three coin flips out of five. You going to tell me those other two coin flips are invalid? It's probability! A 99% chance of something happening means that there's a 1% chance it doesn't.

I'd rather have objective metric than eye tests or old wives tales. Give me data or go home. I'd rather have a KenPom or something. We've talked about pitching in to do something on a huge scale using possession data and other stuff from the box scores but some D3 programs just don't play nice in getting timely box scores on line.

We've had this Massey argument before. Teams rise to the top because of results. As of about December 15 there's no more pre-season bias. All teams are connected and it's based on the results at hand. It's just that certain teams perform well because they schedule and beat really good teams regularly.

And I'd rather have a conference play a double round robin. PERIOD! That's the fairest and truest and most just way to determine a conference champ. As for the NESCAC, they CAN cherry pick more easily because of the number of teams up there, as opposed to the South or West and with only one conference game between each team there's a LOT of teams to schedule or avoid. It's not a real whine, it's just stating the cold truth that they do take advantage of the system. I have another real WHINE about the NESCAC which is on another board here...

[jeffjo]

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

Admitting that I have no knowledge of this comparison, I have to jump in. Massey predicts all 61 games, including all the nebulous ones between unranked teams. D3T25 predicts about half of them, but most of those are the cherry-picked ones of ranked vs. unranked.

Did Pat compare just the same set of games? A comparison isn't valid otherwise, and your description (bracket vs. bracket) sounds like he didn't. Regardless, one year isn't a valid sample space. I've done comparisons in the past, with computer programs that weren't as good as Massey, and they do marginally better than polls. But both are based on regular-season results, and the NCAA tourney is a different animal, so I don't like the comparison.

But let me introduce one completely anecdotal (and completely inadequate for a comparison) piece of evidence:

York sprints to upset

Massey power ranking for York: 43 (12th percentile)
Massey power ranking for Rhode Island College: 108 (25th percentile)

How is this an upset, except by the expectations in the most populous region?

[AmherstStudent05]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

It's not predictive per se - it's a metric. And like any prediction it can go awry. And in a one-and-done format, things happen. Upsets happen. That's why there are percentages. And the highest ranked Massey team isn't always the favorite in his prediction analysis on a given day due to home/road swings and other metrics (offense / defense).

I'd rather have objective metric than eye tests or old wives tales. Give me data or go home.

If Massey says a team has a 60% chance of winning, that's just three coin flips out of five. You going to tell me those other two coin flips are invalid?

We've had this Massey argument before. Teams rise to the top because of results. As of about December 15 there's no more pre-season bias. All teams are connected and it's based on the results at hand. It's just that certain teams perform well because they schedule and beat really good teams regularly.

And I'd rather have a conference play a double round robin. PERIOD! That's the fairest and truest and most just way to determine a conference champ. They CAN cherry pick more easily because of the number of teams up there, as opposed to the South or West.

Smedindy, I understand that Massey is "objective," my question is whether it is any good.  I can create an "objective" computer model of my own.  One of the inputs could be a 150% bonus for any team that plays in the NESCAC!  Just because something is spit out of a model, doesn't make it any good.  And I understand that upsets can happen and that we need a larger sample size.  That's why I asked (genuinely) if there were such a sample size to support Massey.  How long has Massey been around.  Do we like Massey because it produces "metrics" that are statistically significant, or do we like it because Jeff Sagarin can't be bothered to create his own d3 rankings?

Also, I confess that unlike most posters, I know very little about d3hoops outside my own conference.  However, my understanding is that almost all conferences (except for at least the UAA) select a conference champion, not by a round robin format, but rather by a one-and-done playoff.

As nescac1 has already mentioned, the lack of a round robin actually gives NESCAC schools more flexibility to matchup against the best teams in our region.  Again, I don't follow other regions, but did any team have more wins against regionally ranked teams in their region than Amherst did this year?  We have to be up there.

Also, while we are at it.  Just as you would like the NESCAC to play a round-robin, I wish all other conferences truncated preseason practice by two weeks. 

[smedindy]

Massey has been around a long time. In fact, he's one of the original BCS computer models (along with Sagarin). Don't hold the BCS against him - the powers that be totally neutered it by taking margin of victory OUT of it (even though every good metric system has diminishing returns already built into it).  He's usually mentioned along with Sagarin and Ken Pom by D-1 writers as a go to metric. Ken Pom is probably #1 since he really gets into possession data and pace. 

He's got his quirks, of course, but it's pretty darn solid metric. Some luddites don't like it because if violates their eye test, or there was this one result four years ago that looked weird according to their sensibilities even though if you track the data back it made TOTAL sense.

[augie_superfan]

I don't know Massey's exact predictive stats but 2 years ago when I had the time to run my own "Massey-like" ranking system, it predicted about 73% of the games correctly.  My assumption is that his is within a few percentage points either way of that value.  And that is predicting all games (some 5000 or so).

[Gregory Sager]

But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.

You have a pretty liberal definition of "steamrolled" if you consider the Lord Jeffs' win over North Central to have been a steamrolling.

Also, while we are at it.  Just as you would like the NESCAC to play a round-robin, I wish all other conferences truncated preseason practice by two weeks. 

It's a double round-robin that non-NESCACers would like to see your league institute. The NESCAC already plays a single round-robin.

[bopol]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

Wheaton won today; Babson lost.

Wheaton has a higher RPI.

Massey...well, anyway.

I don't think there is any argument that Babson is not a good team.  It's that Bowdoin doesn't belong.  Which they don't.  Amherst and Williams are great teams and then there is a significant dropoff to Middlebury and Bowdoin and I dare say Middlebury was probably better than Bowdoin this year.

FWIW, the 4 tournament teams that Carthage beat during the regular season (IWU, Wheaton, Eastern Conn and Wash U) are 3-0 so far and IWU is up 15 at halftime.

[ziggy]

I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).

Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

Yeah, this year's d3 national pick 'em league. http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4534.5625