Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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.

The NE operated pretty strictly on the .03 = 2 games (unofficial) criteria.  I'm not saying they're way off, but I'm surprised Catholic was #2 - one would think .02 might equal 1 win under that scenario.  Overall, though, I think they're very fair by the numbers - as they should be.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Don't confused .03 and two games being translated into other numbers. Remember, Jeff Burns specifically said .06 doesn't necessarily mean four games... and I have gotten the impression inside of .03 they don't start messing around with games and such. They don't have a spreadsheet or a slide-ruler that breaks down what each SOS difference equates to games - just that .03 is to two games and work from there.

The Northeast Region chair is new and is probably still getting used to some things... let's give them the benefit of the doubt to work on those items. We will certainly see a lot more changes as data changes and the like. Week 1 basically means nothing now-a-days and each week the rankings are reset completely and they start from scratch (they don't work from the previous week's rankings and adjust from there).

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Don't confused .03 and two games being translated into other numbers. Remember, Jeff Burns specifically said .06 doesn't necessarily mean four games... and I have gotten the impression inside of .03 they don't start messing around with games and such. They don't have a spreadsheet or a slide-ruler that breaks down what each SOS difference equates to games - just that .03 is to two games and work from there.

The Northeast Region chair is new and is probably still getting used to some things... let's give them the benefit of the doubt to work on those items. We will certainly see a lot more changes as data changes and the like. Week 1 basically means nothing now-a-days and each week the rankings are reset completely and they start from scratch (they don't work from the previous week's rankings and adjust from there).

I think they did a phenomenal job.  When my biggest complaint is that Catholic is one spot too high, I think they're doing a good job.

Albertus might have gotten a little roughed up, but that SOS gap is just so huge - they really can't complain about it.  Just win the GNAC.

[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.

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

The D3 record is correct but the non-D3 record is incorrect (which was listed on the data sheet as secondary) as well as the overall record. They have them listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 and 18-3 overall when that should be 5-0 and 18-2 (since yesterday's loss wasn't included in this set of rankings).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Ah... gotcha. Will check on that.

[ronk]

 I used to suggest in the 'once ranked, always ranked' days that the NCAA should publish what they think the regional records are before they do the ranking; frequently, there were errors in their data. Now, with nearly all games being in-region and no once-ranked in effect, their incorrect data has less serious consequences.

[AO]

I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

Check my work here if you'd like.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing

[stag44]

Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Chapman's game against UC Irvine has been fixed - though I am not sure it will show up in the data sheets right now.

I will compile a list of other things (list them here) and send them off at a later time. I don't want to bombard the NCAA with individual-issue emails (they are working on another problem I already sent them).

[sac]

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

Using Knightslappy's rankings
This weeks Top 19  Pool C  (the number next to the school is his national rank)

1.  Stevens Point 18-4
2.  Richard Stockton 18-4
5.  Augustana 18-4
7.  Bates  17-4
8.  Williams  13-8*
11. Bowdoin  15-6
13.  Dickinson  18-3
14.  Washington U 16-4
15.  Dubuque  16-4
16.  North Central  14-6

20.  Virginia Wesleyan 17-3
21.  St. John's  10-8*
25.  Rhode Island Coll.  15-6
27.  Springfield  15-6
28.  Amherst  17-5
29.  WPI  17-4
30.  Louisiana College 11-5
31.  Elmhurst  17-5
32.  St. Olaf  17-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
33.  Wooster 16-5
34.  Colby  12-9*
35.  Rutgers-Newark  15-7
37.  Scranton 17-4
39.  Brooklyn  18-5
40.  Case Western 12-5


*--I put asterisks by the 8 and 9 loss teams that probably won't get official rankings equal to where slappy has them ranked.  So move Wooster, Rutgers-Newark and Scranton into the top 19 if you want.

I'd flip North Central and Va. Wesleyan and call that the bubble line.  There are 6 current Pool A leaders above Va. Wesleyan that would be good for a C selection without worry.

Anyone who can get through the next two weeks without losses is significantly improving their Pool C position.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

knightslappy updated his regional rankings using RPI, the number at the left is their current Pool C position.

Bold = teams from conferences where the current A would get a Pool C
1.  Bates
2.  Richard Stockton
3.  Whitewater
4.  Amherst
5.  Washington
6.  Illinois Wesleyan
7.  Williams
8.  Springfield
9.  North Central
10.  Wooster
11.  WPI
12.  Case Western
13.  Emory
-----------------------------------------bubble
14.  Dickinson
15.  Elmhurst
16.  Bowdoin
17.  Va. Wesleyan
18.  Louisiana College
19.  St. Olaf

20.  Rhode Island College
21.  Hope
22.  Whitman
23.  Dubuque
24.  Centre
25.  Colby
26.  Tufts
27.  Mt. Union
28.  Scranton
29.  Chapman
30.  Rutgers-Newark


Current A's that would get C's
St. Thomas
St. Norbert
Augustana
Stevens Point
Marietta
Randolph Macon
Johns Hopkins
William Patterson
Eastern Connecticut
Babson

Current A Within Top 19 of Pool C, could get C
Ohio Wesleyan
St. John Fisher
Trinity

--As always, very fluid

--the Northeast has about 9 teams in contention but that will sort itself out with tournaments,  not terribly convinced Williams would be that easy of a Pool C pick at #7

--I didn't match these to regional rankings so there might be a couple outliers.

[AO]

I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

Check my work here if you'd like.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing

Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!

[KnightSlappy]

I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

Check my work here if you'd like.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing

Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!

I think this is sort of just a coincidence with Nebraska Wesleyan's schedule.

[AO]

I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

Check my work here if you'd like.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing

Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!

I think this is sort of just a coincidence with Nebraska Wesleyan's schedule.

Call me an optimist.  Maybe I'll find another team to check my findings.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

OK... I looked into this and found it myself... the game against Illinois Tech doesn't count as an in-region game and thus in the primary criteria. IT is a P1 or P2 school and thus not part of the primary criteria.

[Pat Coleman]

Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

OK... I looked into this and found it myself... the game against Illinois Tech doesn't count as an in-region game and thus in the primary criteria. IT is a P1 or P2 school and thus not part of the primary criteria.

So the committee is going to be clear on this going forward?