Pool C

[ronk]

New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  ).

  Men with host priority in regional round for those with both(men/women) teams in the tourneys; women have priority in sectional round. No pool B for men - only Pools A and C this year.

[iwumichigander]

New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  ).

It is hard to write something that makes sense when you use crayons.

[Ralph Turner]

New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  ).

Thanks for the link.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I plan to chat with the liaison somewhat soon. She is usually terrific and getting any issues taken care of quickly. I will read through it as well to double-check, but if there are items you see, let me know.

KnightSlappy - what do you mean they aren't describing the SOS correctly? Is it that they are going with the generic version versus the more detailed version? If that is the case, I don't think they will change that as I remember a discussion last year of not wanting to get into the details for reading reasons more than anything. But let me know what you are seeing and I will try and relay that information (remember, they are getting this description from the stats department).

[KnightSlappy]

I plan to chat with the liaison somewhat soon. She is usually terrific and getting any issues taken care of quickly. I will read through it as well to double-check, but if there are items you see, let me know.

KnightSlappy - what do you mean they aren't describing the SOS correctly? Is it that they are going with the generic version versus the more detailed version? If that is the case, I don't think they will change that as I remember a discussion last year of not wanting to get into the details for reading reasons more than anything. But let me know what you are seeing and I will try and relay that information (remember, they are getting this description from the stats department).

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-16_DIIIMBB_PreChamps_20151102.pdf

Bottom of page 18. They show a revised record that adds up to 72.25-52.25 (.5515) (with some funky math because it doesn't show home/road so how are they using multipliers to get decimals!?) and then show another column that says .5585 (OWP).

It then states below that the team's OWP is .5585.

That makes it seem like they're computing OWP as the average of the percentages but that's not what we found out a year or so ago when you sent them that clarification email. They clearly told us they're adding the multiplier to the revised record (wins and losses) and summing the W/L values to come up with an overall OWP.

It's the same chart/explanation as last year's manual, straight copy/paste, but it doesn't at all show how the numbers are being computed.

If they need me to come down to Indianapolis to set them straight I can do that

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I got ya... I highly doubt they are going to change that because it is so detailed... but I will be happy to double-check how they are computing it.

IF you want to show how it should read - being concise like they have to be in the manual - I would be happy to send it to them for them to maybe include instead of their current version.

[KnightSlappy]

I got ya... I highly doubt they are going to change that because it is so detailed... but I will be happy to double-check how they are computing it.

IF you want to show how it should read - being concise like they have to be in the manual - I would be happy to send it to them for them to maybe include instead of their current version.

I still have the example from the NCAA that you forwarded to me back in March. It definitely shows how they calculated OWP last year, but one would never figure it out reading the manual.

But even if the explanation made sense it would still be explaining a crap method. As I've shown numerous times, it's possible -- using the NCAA's method -- that flipping a game from road to home could result in a higher SOS number (and vice versa).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah... but the problem with that is until someone shows them that... it won't change. But to be honest it also makes sense based on the fact your OPPONENTS are now getting the 1.25 boost and you are no longer getting it - I think.

Anyway... I will be seeing people this week in Texas. I will try and see if I can get a meeting set-up or something. Who knows when that would happen if it would happen in the first place... but it's worth a try.

[KnightSlappy]

Yeah... but the problem with that is until someone shows them that... it won't change. But to be honest it also makes sense based on the fact your OPPONENTS are now getting the 1.25 boost and you are no longer getting it - I think.

Anyway... I will be seeing people this week in Texas. I will try and see if I can get a meeting set-up or something. Who knows when that would happen if it would happen in the first place... but it's worth a try.

Sent you an email.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just saw... will read through it shortly. Scrambling to figure out Hoopsville tonight. LOL

[Greek Tragedy]

Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

*I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.

[KnightSlappy]

Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

*I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.

I ran a quick update to the RPI numbers if you want to look at SOS as well.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

Benedictine is probably #1 due to the common opponent result vs. Elmhurst, but Augustana is right on their heels with a better SOS number.

Augustana and Elmhurst currently have a .070 gap in SOS. Is the H2H result enough to overcome that for the Bluejays?

I'd knock North Central down a few spots. The RACs just have not liked to rank teams with winning percentages in the .600s very highly. The Aurora H2H loss would at least flip those two, I think.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

*I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.

I ran a quick update to the RPI numbers if you want to look at SOS as well.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

Benedictine is probably #1 due to the common opponent result vs. Elmhurst, but Augustana is right on their heels with a better SOS number.

Augustana and Elmhurst currently have a .070 gap in SOS. Is the H2H result enough to overcome that for the Bluejays?

I'd knock North Central down a few spots. The RACs just have not liked to rank teams with winning percentages in the .600s very highly. The Aurora H2H loss would at least flip those two, I think.

Remember... the .030 to 2 wins/losses comparison. If Augustana is .070 better than Elmhurst, they are going to adjust the records accordingly. Not to mention the fact the loss would have already been removed/factored in based on the fact they played head-to-head. We have seen it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it in February (first rankings will be the 10th) that Augustana would be ranked ahead of Elmhurst based on all the data despite a head-to-head win for Elmhurst. Just something to think about - not sure I am right about that... but we have seen similiar situations play out before.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The Augie/Elmhurst re-match is on 1-27, so that will certainly affect the rankings once they come out.

[Greek Tragedy]

I considered flip-flopping Aurora and NCC, based on H2H, but NCC's schedule strength seems to be a lot better than Aurora's. In this case, I took SOS over H2H.