Pool C

[WUPHF]

That, and an even bigger advantage - their teams are in FIVE different regions!  Rarely will a UAA team block another UAA team from even reaching the table.

But, what if I do not care if the other UAA teams make the national tournament?  Please help this novice understand.  It may help the conference, but how does, say Emory or NYU benefit?

[Just Bill]

The UAA's bigger advantage is that they are spread out across multiple regions. They could have 3-4 teams "at the table" being considered at once. No one else has that kind of access to Pool C bids.

I've always thought it D-III having about 50% of your teams make the tournament makes the most sense.

[Mr. Ypsi]

That, and an even bigger advantage - their teams are in FIVE different regions!  Rarely will a UAA team block another UAA team from even reaching the table.

But, what if I do not care if the other UAA teams make the national tournament?  Please help this novice understand.  It may help the conference, but how does, say Emory or NYU benefit?

My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.

[WUPHF]

My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.

So the only advantage is bragging rights for the conference?

I do not see this as an advantage.  Maybe it is because I was raised with the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, watching Big 12 basketball, but having other conference teams make the tourney is cold comfort if my team does not make it.

[AO]

Single elimination tournaments are way too much fun.  It's kind of like complaining about there being too many bowl games.  It's bonus sports.

I think it's a problem of trophies.  Very few conferences have recognizable trophies.  They should be unique and have a nickname.   

[ziggy]

My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.

So the only advantage is bragging rights for the conference?

I do not see this as an advantage.  Maybe it is because I was raised with the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, watching Big 12 basketball, but having other conference teams make the tourney is cold comfort if my team does not make it.

I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.

[WUPHF]

I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.

This is what I was looking for in an answer.  This is interesting and why I was genuinely asking.  I'll take your word for it that over time, this is an advantage. 

This was not an advantage in 2013-2014.  In 2014-2015, the UAA is certainly not the only conference that had four teams regionally ranked.

[ziggy]

I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.

This is what I was looking for in an answer.  This is interesting and why I was genuinely asking.  I'll take your word for it that over time, this is an advantage. 

This was not an advantage in 2013-2014.  In 2014-2015, the UAA is certainly not the only conference that had four teams regionally ranked.

How much of an advantage is it really? Who knows. The CCIW has been able to get a number of ranked teams despite being in the same region so I'm not going to go so far as to say the UAA only has a lot of ranked teams because they are spread out. We all know the UAA is a fine league.

The difference is that the CCIW will never have two teams up for Pool C consideration at the same time because one has to be ranked behind the other, whereas NYU and Wash U could be "on the board" at the same time. Ultimately I'm not sure I'd really call that an advantage because there is always someone to jockey with for position in a region whether it is a team from the same conference or not.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.

You're leaving out the SOS difference which is in Scranton's favor.

A .011 'advantage' is essentially a tie.

I disagree; it's more than 1/3 of what's considered a 2-game difference.

.030 to two games is what I think you are referencing... while I agree .011 isn't a "tie" ... I don't see it as a huge advantage. Personally, looking over those numbers has me looking to the vRRO as the difference.

[Greek Tragedy]

Some big games with a few teams fighting for their NCAA Tourney lives tonight.

ATLANTIC
NJCU at William Paterson
Rutgers-Newark at Richard Stockton

#2 William Paterson took a hit last week with the loss to Rowan. I think they'll need a win tonight to really give them safe passage into the NCAAs. I think #1 TGHIJGSTO is in even with a loss tonight to Rutgers-Newark.  Speaking of #5 Rutgers-Newark,  they're on really thin ice. 9 losses will be tough to overcome but their SOS is pretty good. In addition,  they'll be 2nd at the table after Richard Stockton/William Paterson go.

CENTRAL
Nothing happening until Thursday when the WIAC starts their semifinals that include #3 Point and #2 Whitewater.

GREAT LAKES
Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
Denison at Wooster

Ohio Northern at Mount Union
Capital at Marietta
Heidelberg at John Carroll

Both #2 OWU and #3 Wooster should be safe. Semifinal places would all but guarantee Pool C bids. #1 Marietta should be fine. #4 Mount Union should get a little nervous after losing to Joh Carroll last week. A quarterfinal win is necessary.  #5 John Carroll will likely jump Mount Union this week, but they should win to strengthen their Pool C aspirations.

MID-ATLANTIC
Nothing until tomorrow

NORTHEAST
Southern Maine at E. Connecticut
Plymouth State at Rhode Island College

Suffolk at Albertus Magnus

#5 E. Connecticut should safe with their solid record and high SOS. #9 Albertus Magnus and #10 RIC need Pool A bids to be dancing, IMO.

SOUTH
All quiet on the Southern front

WEST
Luther at Dubuque

Cal. Tech at Chapman

#4 Dubuque looks to strengthen their Pool C spot with a 1st round win tonight. Chapman hopes to clinch a share of the SCIAC title tonight. I don't think they have a shot at a Pool C bid.

[WUPHF]

How much of an advantage is it really? Who knows. The CCIW has been able to get a number of ranked teams despite being in the same region so I'm not going to go so far as to say the UAA only has a lot of ranked teams because they are spread out. We all know the UAA is a fine league.

The difference is that the CCIW will never have two teams up for Pool C consideration at the same time because one has to be ranked behind the other, whereas NYU and Wash U could be "on the board" at the same time. Ultimately I'm not sure I'd really call that an advantage because there is always someone to jockey with for position in a region whether it is a team from the same conference or not.

+1 Thanks for the feedback.

[KnightSlappy]

Aside: I really like the 2 games = .030 SOS rule of thumb, but I'd like it a lot better if "2 games" was turned into winning percentage (since winning percentage is the actual criterion). Two games out of a 25-game schedule is .080. This jives fairly well with the traditional RPI calculation.

.750 WP / .530 SOS = .585 RPI
.830 WP / .500 SOS = .583 RPI

[John Gleich]

I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.

[sac]

The UAA has had 9 Pool C bids since 2008.  1.3 per year

Rochester                    East           UAA   2008
Wash U                    Mid West    UAA   2008
Brandeis                    Northeast   UAA   2008
Carnegie-Mellon   Great Lakes   UAA   2009
Brandeis                    Northeast   UAA   2009
NYU                            East           UAA   2012
Rochester             East           UAA   2013
Emory                    South           UAA   2013
Emory                    South           UAA   2014

2008 was the first year D3 started using SOS after dropping QOWI.  That first year the UAA had 3 Pool C teams from 3 different regions plus their Pool A.  Since then its really difficult to tell without all the old data if the 2nd Pool C in 2009 and 2013 were borderline.  2008 was the only year a conference received 3 Pool C bids until last year when the NEWMAC recieved 3.

The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

NESCAC  --12
CCIW      --11
ODAC     --11
WIAC     --9
UAA        --9


The 'big advantage' for UAA might be overblown a little, and I say that as someone who has often said the UAA has a big advantage. 


As Ziggy stated, their advantage seems to be having multiple teams on the table at one time.  In reality that's probably no more than 2 teams in different region in any given year.  I would say in most cases the 2nd or 3rd Pool C from any conference is pretty borderline to begin with.

For instance if Washington and Brandeis are at the table at the same time it might be that if they were in the same region Washington would be blocking Brandeis.  Then if WashU is selected Brandeis is up next.  Their criteria hasn't changed relative to the other 7 teams that were already at the table.  WashU was already deemed better by their regional committee.  So Brandeis doesn't really lose anything but extra time at the table being passed over.

You can make an argument about being in different regions helps them get a couple extra RvRRO's, that is a definite advantage.

I will also toss out there the advantage for UAA not being actually physically geographically in the same region is they don't really compete with each for non-conference games.  Its a little easier for each individual school to put together a great schedule.  That might be their advantage as small as it may be.

[Pat Coleman]

I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.

What an awesome night that was!
http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2001/02/stout-rout-caps-wacky-wiac