Pool C

[smedindy]

BTW, the NESCAC's SOS according to Massey was #23 of all conferences, which has to be an effect of the single round robin. That's really hard to do when you're the #5 conference overall. CCIW had the toughest overall SOS.

The other NE conference rankingsn (out of 47, including independents and some splits in conferences):

NEWMAC - 23
LEC - 31
CCC - 37
GNAC - 39
MASCAC - 40
NECC - 42
NAC - 47

Yes, there are dog conferences in other regions (UMAC and SLIAC for two) but you can only fatten up a couple of times on those teams if playing a double round robin. Since NE is a pretty compact region, it's fairly easy to travel (except for snow) and find games nearby and you can definitely avoid the wretched teams.

Out here in the NW, the D-3 teams have to travel, play in a lot of tournaments or play a lot of NAIA and maybe D-2 teams. They also can get creative and find a team that wants to make a long roadtrip to reward their kids. Others in the South and West are just as isolated.

[sac]

You might want to listen to my interview with Dave Hixon regarding the topic of scheduling... I conducted it a few weeks ago...

I don't think this disproved anything that's been argued on here about what NESCAC schools can do with their scheduling.

http://d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/feb16

it was also just 1 question.

[Gregory Sager]

Hey, ya can't fault D-Mac for slipping in a commercial for his show.

[smedindy]

Bowdoin's the team that's causing burrs in saddles. I looked at their non-conference schedule.

Playing Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps. Bates was 1-9 in conference play and 11-13 overall. Had they played a double round they may have been 5-19 or 6-18 or worse. Colby was 14-11 but 4-6 in conference. That record may have flipped in a double round. Playing a single round helped Bates' record immensely, which helps the rest of the NESCAC.

I'm just looking at the OWP version of the SOS since it is the largest factor and easiest to grab quickly.

Of the non-NESCAC teams, Babson was their best non-conference game (20 wins, Massey 55). Then it falls off the table, big time. W. Connecticut (180), St. Joe's (184) and Bridgewater (186) were the only other ones in the upper half of Massey. Their records (17-9, 18-10, and 16-12) help a lot more in the SOS than their actual SOS.

Plymouth won 13 games and had a 243 Massey. Maine-Farmington was 13-15, and not an SOS killer, but their Massey was 344. Thomas was 11-15 and Massey was 369. Still, their 11-15 record wasn't an SOS killer compared to a team beating up on Oberlin, Earlham or North Park, even though it could be argued that those three teams were better than Thomas and would beat them 3 or 4 times out of 5.

The actual NCAA SOS criteria for Bowdoin doesn't come close to demonstrating their true non-conference SOS. They were helped by playing two NESCAC teams out of conference that benefited from the single round robin to get passable records, mediocre teams that piled up good records, and bad teams that piled up mediocre records that didn't kill the SOS much. Heck, even UM-PI didn't eviscerate it (they were 2-4 vs. D-3 which I think counted in these calculations).

Their only two horrid SOS games were Southern Maine (7-19) and Maine Maritime (2-23).

This is what I mean. Not playing a double round means you CAN find games against Bridgewater, St. Joe's, and Plymouth that won't kill you and you can win more often than not.

Had they double rounded it, they may have had a lot fewer games to work with, but their NCAA SOS would probably be more accurate.

A middle ground would be to create two divisions in the NESCAC, like other conferences. Double round your division and single round the other. While not ideal, it's better.

My biggest complaint / fear is football conferences that are bloated enough to not have full round robins and you get into a situation where you could have two undefeated teams fighting for an "A" (almost happened this year with St. Norbert and Illinois College but thankfully both teams decided to take care of that themselves the last two weeks of the year). I know you can't double round football (although the conference the University I work for has double rounded for the past few years thanks to its isolation in D2), but an 8 or 10 team conference definitely can in hoops without an issue, and even larger conferences have tried or come close.

[sac]

Bowdoin is also helped with the modifiers by not playing a round-robin.

Example
Played Williams once, on the road

Williams away  22-4  .846    with modifier  1.058


If they played Williams twice home and away
Williams away 22-4  .846   with modifier  1.058
Williams home 22-4  .846   with modifier   .635
that washes out to a an SOS factor of .846

In just this one instance its worth about .016 to their SOS calculation by not having to play Williams at home, to say nothing of the probable loss. 

[Gregory Sager]

I don't think that anyone begrudges the NESCAC the right to schedule however it sees fit. One of the bywords of the NCAA is league-level governance. To use a political term, it's sort of the states' rights view of how to run a national sports organization; the NCAA allows member leagues to have autonomy in any number of areas, from scheduling to post-season play to the administration of medical hardship waivers to restricting off-campus recruiting visits to deciding automatic-qualifier bids. If the NESCAC wants to operate its men's basketball competition on a single round-robin basis rather than a double round-robin (or modified double round-robin, as is the case in a few instances within D3's larger leagues), then that's the NESCAC's prerogative.

But all of smed's points here are valid:

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the MOST legitimate conference championship is a double round robin. Period. That's my point. I know conferences that are bloated and it's really hard to do so. But playing certain teams only on a home court or on the road hurts the balance of a conference. I've always been very consistent about this. I hate it in D-1, I hate it in D-3. Double round robins with no conference tournament is the most legitimate conference champ. That's what I meant. That's what I've always said.

And yes, they DO get to jimmy their schedule. You don't think those teams cherry pick good teams in the NE to gain SOS points? Seriously? We've all said that most teams do this to some extent, it doesn't mean that the NESCAC doesn't do it! And they have MORE chances to gain SOS points because of the single round robin. That's the ENTIRE issue. It's not false. It's TRUE!

They have played the same conference schedule before getting to the NCAA's. I know that, sure. I also know that you get to pick and choose your non-conference schedule, and if you want to gain SOS points you can be very selective. And just because they've played the same conference schedule for years doesn't make it right or fair, especially if you get to avoid good teams on the road.

Plus, if you looked at the NESCAC early in Massey, you may have seen it before teams got all connected. Also, a conference is depth and breadth, not just the top teams. The bottom counts just as much as the top.

It's not as though midwesterners are trying to besmirch the NESCAC because of regional pride, or because of power-conference jockeying. There is, quite simply, no way of getting around the fact that a single round-robin is a less definitive and less balanced way of determining a champion than a double round-robin, and the comparatively light conference schedule played by NESCAC teams as a result of only taking one pass apiece through the rest of the league does lend itself to SOS manipulation by any coach canny enough to try to pull it off. (And, to be honest, every head coach in D3 ought to be thinking of how to schedule with Pool C in mind.)

Oh, and I also think that what Toad said about the WIAC is spot-on.

[bopol]

It's not as though midwesterners are trying to besmirch the NESCAC because of regional pride, or because of power-conference jockeying. There is, quite simply, no way of getting around the fact that a single round-robin is a less definitive and less balanced way of determining a champion than a double round-robin, and the comparatively light conference schedule played by NESCAC teams as a result of only taking one pass apiece through the rest of the league does lend itself to SOS manipulation by any coach canny enough to try to pull it off. (And, to be honest, every head coach in D3 ought to be thinking of how to schedule with Pool C in mind.)

A simpler solution would be for the committee to do their job and not award them with a Pool C bid while having the head of the committee on Hoopsville talking about how Carthage didn't win their tough games, even though 5 teams they beat are in the tournament and each won their first round games.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?

[bopol]

Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?

You have to give some indication of who's post you're commenting on so that person knows to respond.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I immediately replied to your post bopol... didn't think that needed explanation.

[gordonmann]

Playing Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps.

FYI, Bowdoin plays Colby and Bates twice as part of their CBB rivalry, similar to the Little Three rivalry between Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan. Those teams would probably play each other regardless of their records.

[pjunito]

Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?

Dave, other teams are punished for winning, aren't they? CSI comes to mind.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The NESCAC teams actually play teams of note, though. CSI didn't really play anyone of note. NESCAC may not play the teams everyone wants them to play, but they don't avoid tough opponents. CSI needs to find a couple of teams worthy of talking about playing against.

[sac]

The NESCAC teams actually play teams of note, though. CSI didn't really play anyone of note. NESCAC may not play the teams everyone wants them to play, but they don't avoid tough opponents. CSI needs to find a couple of teams worthy of talking about playing against.

This thread has gone off the rails abit from the original statements that the NE region can in general cherry pick their schedules to reflect higher SOS ratings thus increasing their chances of Pool C selection.  Its not who they play, its the availability of who they play(all NE teams) and in the NESCAC's case how not playing a round-robin affects their ability to present more Pool C worthy numbers than a round-robin schedule might produce.

[bopol]

I immediately replied to your post bopol... didn't think that needed explanation.

Oh, ok.  I already feel like I'm piling on the poor NE Smalls guys, so I am trying to be careful not to participate anymore unless I'm responding directly.

In conference play, well, 6-5 is pretty mediocre, especially when you get dumped in the quarterfinals of your conference tournament against a lower seed, even if you play in the #5 conference in the country.  To give some comparison, UW-Lacrosse, Marietta, Mount Union, Wilmington, UW-Platteville, DePauw, Middlebury, Springfield, Carthage, William Paterson and Chicago are all teams from very good conferences that all outperformed Bowdoin in conference play and did not get a Pool C bid.  So, since this is so mediocre that it couldn't have pushed Bowdoin over the top for the Pool C bid, so it must have been their nonconference play.

Now, they were undefeated in nonconference play, but their schedule was awfully soft.  Besides Babson, they didn't play a Top 100 opponent. Now, with 14 nonconference games, I'd say you have plenty of opportunity to test yourself and play the little round robin with Colby and Bates, but Bowdoin chose not to. 

So, Bowdoin's whole argument comes down to they beat Babson, because there wasn't a single other thing they did that was Pool C worthy  For example, they lost their other 3 games vs. RRO, which gave them a worse winning percentage against RRO at .250 than Carthage (.364), Springfield (.333), William Patterson (.500), DePauw (.444)).  Somehow that hurt the other teams, but not Bowdoin.  Also, they beat a lot of teams outside the Top 100 (17-2), but so did Staten Island and they didn't go in either.

So, I'm trying to figure out how Bowdoin gets in and a Staten Island doesn't (better record overall, better record against teams outside the Top 100, similar record against RRO) or a Bowdoin gets in and a Carthage doesn't (beat teams everyone agrees are Top 10 teams in IWU and Wash U, beat Eastern Connecticut, beat Wheaton).  And this can be easily extended to include Springfield, William Paterson, DePauw, etc.

The committee blew this one.  Bowdoin should have been 22-3 to be Pool C worthy given their schedule.  Somehow, they got a pass and the out and out lame arguments I heard on your show on why a Staten Island didn't get in or a Carthage didn't get in (almost like there was no process whatsoever) apply doubly so to Bowdoin.