Pool C

[Gregory Sager]

Wow! I can't believe that you unearthed those eight-year-old posts, blew the dust off of them, and dropped them right into the middle of a practically identical current discussion, Ralph. Nice sleuthing.

[Ralph Turner]

Wow! I can't believe that you unearthed those eight-year-old posts, blew the dust off of them, and dropped them right into the middle of a practically identical current discussion, Ralph. Nice sleuthing.

It's deja vu all over again!

[bopol]

If it is really the Bowdoin bid that is at issue, then I think we can get pretty complete agreement that a mistake was made. Based on my reading of the selection criteria, it doesn't seem like they should have been picked. The conversation has gone very far afield of that.

There were some questions about Dickinson early on, I imagine that talk has probably been long forgotten by this point.

Dickinson was the 4th of my last 4 out, and, IMHO, acceptable based on the NCAA standard, albeit I think the committee passed up better choices to get to them.  I was surprised they made it because I thought they would get passed by Stevenson in the Mid-Atlantic, but they clearly didn't.  My guess is that Guilford did stick in the Regional Rankings, which would have given Dickinson a good 2-1 vs. RRO and a 19-5 record against those not.

In that case, they would have trumped Bowdoin and, based on RRO record, you could make reasonable arguments to why they belonged over Stevenson, Carthage and DePauw, though I would have picked any of those teams ahead of them.

[John Gleich]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

[wally_wabash]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data. 

[sac]

I really can't believe D3 hasn't adopted RPI.  What they are basically doing is trying to figure out how to weigh winning % and SOS while looking at two different numbers when RPI does that and gives you one number.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

[wally_wabash]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing. 

[nescac1]

Believe it or not, despite no geographic resource-based constraints, far more inter-regional games during the regular season, a lot more games, period, the use of RPI, and more national television exposure (to put it mildly) for tournment teams, the Division I selection process generates more than its share of controversy on an annual basis, with a sizeable cohort of teams convinced that they were robbed.  I'm guessing that the fans of the teams that are left on the sidelines, in any division, will feel equally aggrieved, no matter what criteria is employed in the inherently subjective endeavor of ascertaining who the best 64 (or 62, or whatever) basketball teams in the country are.

[I dedicate this post to Frank Uible ... whose spirit I realized, half-way through, I had inadvertently channeled]. 

[John Gleich]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

I get that some schools are going to be pretty obvious... take, for instance, Stevens Point and Cabrini when they were both defeated. Further, teams that have a certain record. But I'm thinking that even the H2H results and results against common opponents can be veiled... and these committees have enough work to do that they wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to figure these teams out...

Now, that doesn't mean that posters here wouldn't try to figure it out. I pretty much guarantee that this would happen.


And this would all be solved by going to an RPI.

[Pat Coleman]

Some food for thought:

• An RPI would have less meaning in Division III with the D-III philosophy actively suppressing interregional play.
• Having an RPI at all contradicts the D-III philosophy.
• Do we trust the NCAA to calculate one correctly and not allow a sport's committee to f' it up?

[smedindy]

I think the RPI is all FUBARED anyway as the be-all and end-all.  You think some conferences are gaming the system now? See the A-10 this year for super-mega gaming the RPI system. UMass is a good team. They're 49th in the Pomeroy rankings, 34th in Massey, 47th in Sagarin. By those metrics, if they make the A-10 semi finals they'll probably be in the tourney. (That's a fine league this year.)

They're 16th in RPI. That's kind of a disconnect. The reason is they built their schedule to be very RPI friendly. A decent, deep conference, and a non-conference of good, yet beatable teams (New Mexico, Nebraska, BYU, LSU, Clemson, Ohio, Providence) and avoiding the dogs (the only sub-200 RPI team that is non-conference is Youngstown State). Of course they have to win a lot of those games to get RPI points, and they did. But beating LSU and Clemson and Providence and Nebraska isn't really worthy of a 16th in RPI. Their power rankings on one of those three indicies above probably shows their true value.

The Mountain West does this too. Nothing wrong with it at all since it's about their only entre into the tourney on a consistent basis. Since the A-10, Mountain West, MVC, and other higher non-BCS conferences can't get big time majors to come to their place, they schedule this way and also play in a lot of tournaments where they get a couple of good games on a neutral court.

A real Massey / Ken Pom hybrid is probably the way to go.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

I get that some schools are going to be pretty obvious... take, for instance, Stevens Point and Cabrini when they were both defeated. Further, teams that have a certain record. But I'm thinking that even the H2H results and results against common opponents can be veiled... and these committees have enough work to do that they wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to figure these teams out...

Now, that doesn't mean that posters here wouldn't try to figure it out. I pretty much guarantee that this would happen.


And this would all be solved by going to an RPI.

Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do.  Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

[wally_wabash]

Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament. 

[Gregory Sager]

Great work Ralph!

This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

I dunno. Considering how badly this year's iteration of the national committee bungled the bracketing part of the process, I don't have a tremendous heap of confidence in the committee at the moment.