Pool C

[AO]

IIAC
Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.

Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.

At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.

This is apparently not new, it was how they've done it the last few years (apparently), but it wasn't communicated very well what they were doing. The handbook doesn't really make it clear how to calculate the number, and the example contains errors.

I'm looking forward to seeing the data on Wednesday to make sure mine matches up.

I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings.  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses. 

[KnightSlappy]

IIAC
Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.

Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.

At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.

This is apparently not new, it was how they've done it the last few years (apparently), but it wasn't communicated very well what they were doing. The handbook doesn't really make it clear how to calculate the number, and the example contains errors.

I'm looking forward to seeing the data on Wednesday to make sure mine matches up.

I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings.  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.

[AO]

I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings.  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.

exactly  .1 OWP and .599 OOWP

here's my OOWP

at Gustavus   15   9   1.25   18.75   11.25
at Augsburg •   17   7   1.25   21.25   8.75
at UW-Platteville •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
vs. Augustana •   18   6   1   18   6
at Westminster (Mo.) •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
vs. Grinnell •   15   5   0.75   11.25   3.75
vs. Loras * •   13   10   0.75   9.75   7.5
at Coe * •   6   14   1.25   7.5   17.5
vs. Buena Vista * •   11   9   0.75   8.25   6.75
vs. Luther * •   11   8   0.75   8.25   6
at Central * •   13   5   1.25   16.25   6.25
vs. Wartburg * •   11   10   0.75   8.25   7.5
at Dubuque * •   16   4   1.25   20   5
at Luther * •   11   8   1.25   13.75   10
vs. Central * •   13   5   0.75   9.75   3.75
vs. Dubuque * •   16   4   0.75   12   3
at Wartburg * •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
vs. Coe * •   6   14   0.75   4.5   10.5
at Loras * •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
Buena Vista   11   9   1.25   13.75   11.25
            261.25   418

[KnightSlappy]

I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings.  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.

exactly  .1 OWP and .599 OOWP

here's my OOWP

at Gustavus   15   9   1.25   18.75   11.25
at Augsburg •   17   7   1.25   21.25   8.75
at UW-Platteville •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
vs. Augustana •   18   6   1   18   6
at Westminster (Mo.) •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
vs. Grinnell •   15   5   0.75   11.25   3.75
vs. Loras * •   13   10   0.75   9.75   7.5
at Coe * •   6   14   1.25   7.5   17.5
vs. Buena Vista * •   11   9   0.75   8.25   6.75
vs. Luther * •   11   8   0.75   8.25   6
at Central * •   13   5   1.25   16.25   6.25
vs. Wartburg * •   11   10   0.75   8.25   7.5
at Dubuque * •   16   4   1.25   20   5
at Luther * •   11   8   1.25   13.75   10
vs. Central * •   13   5   0.75   9.75   3.75
vs. Dubuque * •   16   4   0.75   12   3
at Wartburg * •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
vs. Coe * •   6   14   0.75   4.5   10.5
at Loras * •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
Buena Vista   11   9   1.25   13.75   11.25
            261.25   418

Oh dang, I was using data through the end of the season, instead of through Feb 23, 2014. I'll update and check.

OK, I'm getting .267 with Central at 14-5.

At any rate, they certainly seem to be applying the multiplier to both the wins and the losses, contrary to what I was told in the offseason. Otherwise the OWP should be .125, and the only way you get .266 SOS from a .125 OWP is a .548 OOWP. And I don't see how that's possible given the above.

[AO]

Oh dang, I was using data through the end of the season, instead of through Feb 23, 2014. I'll update and check.

OK, I'm getting .267 with Central at 14-5.

At any rate, they certainly seem to be applying the multiplier to both the wins and the losses, contrary to what I was told in the offseason. Otherwise the OWP should be .125, and the only way you get .266 SOS from a .125 OWP is a .548 OOWP. And I don't see how that's possible given the above.

Went and looked at the handbook and found that it uses our preferred calculation method.

The strength of each opponent's schedule is measured by computing the opponents' winning percentage for each opponent, then averaging the percentages. "

Maybe we'll luck out and they'll follow the handbook.  If they don't know how they've been applying the multiplier in the past maybe they'll try a different way this year.

[KnightSlappy]

I, for one, am shocked that the NCAA would do something with so little transparency.

[Greek Tragedy]

I, for one, am shocked that the NCAA would do something with so little transparency.

I didn't sense any sarcasm there...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/

[Pat Coleman]

This should be interesting!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just on quick looks, it appear the Northeast put a lot of weight on SOS, while the Mid-Atlantic seems to have largely ignored it?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

No... I get the sense the numbers were considered the same way across the board but that other data came into play as well - like it should have.

The Mid-Atlantic has almost all of their teams within the same striking distance on the SOS - not a lot of large gaps.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

They have Chapman listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 teams... meaning they've included the UC-Irvine game which was before the season started (for D3)? Haven't checked other teams but if they did it there I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it to other teams too. It is only secondary but it's still wrong data.

[sac]

I was immediately drawn to Amherst at #3 in the Northeast.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

They have Chapman listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 teams... meaning they've included the UC-Irvine game which was before the season started (for D3)? Haven't checked other teams but if they did it there I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it to other teams too. It is only secondary but it's still wrong data.

The NCAA has them listed at 13-2 and through Sunday that is a correct D3 number.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I was immediately drawn to Amherst at #3 in the Northeast.

I thought they'd be #5, but they've got the numbers for 3.  It'll be interesting to see how the end of the NESCAC season changes things in the NE.