Pool C

[AO]

My estimates for Bowdoin's OWP assuming the NESCAC teams win roughly the same percentage of their non-conference games while playing a double round robin.

I've got their OWP moving from .522 to .457.  This would make a big difference for every potential NESCAC Pool C and every NESCAC team hoping to host.

[bopol]

If the CCIW schools are so concerned about all this, the solution is simple: just move your campuses to Massachusetts, so you can feast on all the terrible basketball programs out here like Williams, Amherst, MIT, Babson, Brandeis, Rhode Island College, Middlebury, WPI, Albertus Magnus, and so on.  Problem solved, and everyone is happy!

Or Eastern Connecticut.

Which Carthage did.  And they beat.

[sac]

Here are all the Northeast Region Pool C's since 2008, the year we switched to SOS calculations.

2008
Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Brandeis
WPI
Bowdoin

2009
Rhode Island
Farmingdale St.
Amherst
Salem St.
WPI
Brandeis

2010
MIddlebury
MIT
Brandeis

2011
Williams
WPI
Becker
Amherst
W. Conn

2012
Middlebury
W. Conn
Rhode Island

2013
Williams
Middlebury
MIT
Springfield

2014
Williams
Babson
E. Conn
WPI
Springfield
Bowdoin


Once again I just want to point out my original intent was not to bemoan the NESCAC or its scheduling practices.  This was about the increased access to in-region games and the ease of strengthening schedules leading to more Pool C bids for the region.

NE region is 18% of D3 but has received 25% of Pool C bids since 2008.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yes, the NESCAC has a geographical advantage.  Their conference has an added advantage in that they prioritize not traveling much (or at all) to play.  They want their athletes home and not missing classes.

It is what it is.  Once it's pointed out (as it is every year or two), is there really any point continuing to harp on it over and over?

[AO]

Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..

I hear what you're saying, but I can't get behind the proposal that conference games should be weighed relatively less in the strength of schedule calculation.  I'm not suggesting that we should change the SOS calculation to punish the NESCAC or other conferences for not playing enough conference games.  Their SOS is accurate.  In many cases they did play decent non-conference teams instead of playing the worst teams from their conference again.

What would really help is if we had a criteria that gave a priority to results against top 50 and top 100 RPI teams.  If a team had 5 wins against top 50 RPI but a poor conference strength, it should be easy for the committee to evaluate them against a top conference candidate (Bowdoin) who benefits from the strong strength of schedule but didn't beat any top 50 RPI teams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..

I hear what you're saying, but I can't get behind the proposal that conference games should be weighed relatively less in the strength of schedule calculation as they're out of your scheduling control.  What would really help is if we had a criteria that gave a priority to results against top 50 and top 100 RPI teams.  If a team had 5 wins against top 50 RPI but a poor conference strength, it should be easy for the committee to evaluate them against a top conference candidate (Bowdoin) who benefits from the strong strength of schedule but didn't beat any top 50 RPI teams.

As I said before, when the brackets came out.  I think the committee expected teams to have some RRO on the schedule, but adjusted for those whose conference didn't provide them with some.  Bowdoin is the only school who got in who really didn't fit that criteria.

I do think it's important to take into account the difficulty of a team from a weak conference getting as many RRO as a team from a strong conference.  But that's not very hard to do looking at schedule.  Either you tried or you didn't.

[David Collinge]

KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.

[AO]

KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.

It's not double counting.  It's a measure to give greater importance to the toughest games.  It just does a really poor job of it as we don't really know who is in the final regional rankings and we have no national RPI to compare one regional ranking against another regional ranking. 

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid? 

My thoughts on this. Possible unworthy teams in the expanded (more than 48/50 teams) era:

Bowdoin men 2014.
Bowdoin men 2008.
Williams women 2014.
Williams women 2011.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.

I'd say this is fair.  It at least gives a more objective measure.  I also like the idea of the blind draw - don't associate the names of the schools with the stats at all - just throw the numbers out there and let them figure it out that way.

[nescac1]

In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.  They had a number of impressive wins vs. tournament / regionally ranked teams (Amherst, Bowdoin, Plattsburgh St., Castleton) plus some other solid non-conference wins (Eastern Conn, Babson x2, Smith, St. Lawrence).  Although they ended the season with a rough stretch, they were in no way shape or form "unworthy," and they not only played a very tough schedule (three of their five losses prior to the NCAA were to top-notch teams in Amherst, Tufts, and Bowdoin), they won many of those tough games.  They were not a borderline team at all. 

Bowdoin men, 2014, I agree with.  The other two teams were long enough ago that I have no idea.  But I will also note that the Colby and Wesleyan men's teams which did NOT make it in the tournament in recent years had solid arguments that they belonged.  So it's not like every borderline NESCAC teams gets in.  I'd say more borderline UAA teams get in than NESCAC teams (some of the Brandeis, NYU and Emory men's teams have gotten in with really suspect records, for example).  And yes, they play a double round robin, and it hasn't hurt them it seems.   

[toad22]

Ah, the unfairness of life! If everybody outside the northeast thinks that they aren't getting fair consideration  when it comes to NCAA bids, complain to the NCAA. The leagues and teams in the northeast have little effect on how the NCAA operates. In other words, they are not at fault! The carping this year seems to be the worst ever, and that's hard to imagine. I am under no illusion that the NCAA knows what they are doing. They often seem to get it right only by accident. However, as it stands now, each league and school has wide latitude to operate the way they choose. If you are really that offended, get the NCAA to rein in these renegade groups, so that they act more to your liking. Till that happens, all this endless complaining seems pretty lame.       

[smedindy]

In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.  They had a number of impressive wins vs. tournament / regionally ranked teams (Amherst, Bowdoin, Plattsburgh St., Castleton) plus some other solid non-conference wins (Eastern Conn, Babson x2, Smith, St. Lawrence).  Although they ended the season with a rough stretch, they were in no way shape or form "unworthy," and they not only played a very tough schedule (three of their five losses prior to the NCAA were to top-notch teams in Amherst, Tufts, and Bowdoin), they won many of those tough games.  They were not a borderline team at all. 

Bowdoin men, 2014, I agree with.  The other two teams were long enough ago that I have no idea.  But I will also note that the Colby and Wesleyan men's teams which did NOT make it in the tournament in recent years had solid arguments that they belonged.  So it's not like every borderline NESCAC teams gets in.  I'd say more borderline UAA teams get in than NESCAC teams (some of the Brandeis, NYU and Emory men's teams have gotten in with really suspect records, for example).  And yes, they play a double round robin, and it hasn't hurt them it seems.

Williams women's Massey was #49 and SOS was #70.

Babson was 14-13. Smith and St. Lawrence were in the 100's in the Massey rating (good, not great teams). Not having followed the women's side of the ledger much, but seeing this data, it's a borderline case.

[smedindy]

Ah, the unfairness of life! If everybody outside the northeast thinks that they aren't getting fair consideration  when it comes to NCAA bids, complain to the NCAA. The leagues and teams in the northeast have little effect on how the NCAA operates. In other words, they are not at fault! The carping this year seems to be the worst ever, and that's hard to imagine. I am under no illusion that the NCAA knows what they are doing. They often seem to get it right only by accident. However, as it stands now, each league and school has wide latitude to operate the way they choose. If you are really that offended, get the NCAA to rein in these renegade groups, so that they act more to your liking. Till that happens, all this endless complaining seems pretty lame.     

So we shouldn't offer data or suggestions at all? Just keep it to ourselves?

We're trying to improve the entire darn process here! There's got to be a way to discuss and formulate these issues and not just keep it silent so we don't offend a sensibility of a sensitive bunch.

Bowdoin is the one that puts this in the crosshairs and trying to see how we can make the process more fair and right and just and honest.

[Pat Coleman]

In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.

But should they have been?

The carping this year seems to be the worst ever.

Doesn't seem like it to me, although it does seem like the conversation is lasting longer this year because it won't die. It goes away for a while, then someone new discovers it, throws in some stuff that hasn't been true for a decade or so and it goes back around.