Pool C

[Mr. Ypsi]

Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

D-mac?  Pat?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

D-mac?  Pat?

Correct.

Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.

[iwumichigander]

Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

D-mac?  Pat?

Correct.

Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.

so in KnightSlappy We Trust?

[bopol]

I thought that the previous week's vRRO numbers are used in determining the new regional rankings.

Kind of silly, but still Carthage beat North Park twice.  Even with the vRRO difference, Carthage has the two wins and better SOS.

[Gregory Sager]

Remember, though, that NPU has the better winning percentage because one of Carthage's wins doesn't count as primary criteria. I don't know if the Red Men played Robert Morris-Peoria because of a late cancellation or because Bosko wanted to do the RMUP coach a favor or else didn't prioritize filling that spot with a D3 opponent, but right now it's the difference between a .696 WP and a .708 WP.

[bopol]

Remember, though, that NPU has the better winning percentage because one of Carthage's wins doesn't count as primary criteria. I don't know if the Red Men played Robert Morris-Peoria because of a late cancellation or because Bosko wanted to do the RMUP coach a favor or else didn't prioritize filling that spot with a D3 opponent, but right now it's the difference between a .696 WP and a .708 WP.

Still, 2-0 in head to head and much better SOS with roughly the same WP.

[sac]

The 5 primary criteria are:

Win%
SOS
RRO
Head-to-head
results vs common D3 opponents

I believe North Park has the advantage in 3 of those  Win%, RRO, common D3 opponents. 

[KnightSlappy]

I would imagine 2-0 is a sizeable advantage,  certainly much more than 1-0 or 2-1.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

D-mac?  Pat?

Correct.

Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.

so in KnightSlappy We Trust?

In what way? I certainly trust him to get the right SOS numbers to help me make selections Sunday night. Matt's work is terrific.

[smedindy]

Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.

They marked those games as non-conference games, to be clear. Doesn't affect the outcome.

Thanks.

When I see 'vacated', I usually think that they turn into losses. Must have been a conference ineligibility and not an NCAA ineligibility.

[fantastic50]

Best guesses at new regional rankings...


Central
1) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2) LW #1 - WIAC favorite, lock
2) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3) LW #2 - already in (UAA champ)
3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3) LW #3 - near-lock
4) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2) LW #4 - needs to win WIAC quarterfinal
5) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2) LW #5 - needs to win Tues & CCIW semi
6) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0) LW #7 - NACC favorite, bubble if no AQ
7) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2) - must win Tues & CCIW semi to reach bubble
8) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4) LW #8 - likely needs CCIW AQ
X) Illinois Wesleyan (16-8, 0.555, 5-2) LW #6

North Park lost twice to Carthage.  I think that Carthage will be in front of North Park as a result.

I agree with you.  In the simulation model, I am using only WP, SOS, and vRRO, not (yet) head-to-head or common opponents, though I do use those in conference-seeding tiebreakers.

[Pat Coleman]

Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.

They marked those games as non-conference games, to be clear. Doesn't affect the outcome.

Thanks.

When I see 'vacated', I usually think that they turn into losses. Must have been a conference ineligibility and not an NCAA ineligibility.

Probably also an NCAA ineligibility but in the interest of time, the conference generally has the power to do whatever it wants with its conference standings. And with DWC not being an NCAA member next season, probably a moot point on the NCAA side.

[fantastic50]

In addition to must-win games for bubble or bubble-wannabee teams tonight (Wooster, John Carroll, Cal Lutheran, North Park, TCNJ, Carthage, IWU), we also have our first potential bid thief (or bubble-burster) game, with Ramapo (which looks safely in) hosting Rowan.

[iwumichigander]

Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

D-mac?  Pat?

Correct.

Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.

so in KnightSlappy We Trust?

In what way? I certainly trust him to get the right SOS numbers to help me make selections Sunday night. Matt's work is terrific.

Oh just tongue in cheek.  I trust Matt his work is terrific, accurate and updated quickly. 

[sac]

Here's what I have, through Sunday's games...

Locks or near-locks (14)
A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ
A) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 53% WIAC AQ
A) Babson (24-1, 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 80% NEWMAC AQ
A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.608, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 40% NESCAC AQ
A) Whitman (25-0, 0.536, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% NWC AQ
C#1) Rochester (21-3, 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) lock, 0% UAA AQ
A) Marietta (21-4, 0.577, 4-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 56% OAC AQ
A) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.525, 2-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 80% CAC AQ
C#2) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 29% NESCAC AQ
C#3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3 vRRO, CE#3) near-lock, 19% WIAC AQ
A) Ramapo (23-2, 0.492, 5-2 vRRO, AT#1) near-lock, 62% NJAC AQ
C#4) Susquehanna (20-4, 0.550, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) near-lock, 29% LAND AQ
A) Neumann (23-2, 0.502, 5-0 vRRO, AT#2) near-lock, 58% CSAC AQ
C#5) Whitworth (22-3, 0.528, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) near-lock, 22% NWC AQ

Strong position (9) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
A) Hanover (19-3, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, GL#4) 99% (57% HCAC or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) 97% (0% NESCAC or 97% C), 100% if CF, 97% if lose out
A) Hope (19-4, 0.521, 2-1 vRRO, GL#2) 98% (61% MIAA or 95% C), 96% if CF, 93% if lose out
A) Skidmore (19-6, 0.522, 6-1 vRRO, EA#6) 98% (55% LL or 95% C), 100% if CF, 91% if lose out
A) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.556, 3-1 vRRO, SO#3) 95% (49% ASC or 91% C), 91% if CF, 85% if lose out
C#7) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 5-4 vRRO, NE#7) 91% (17% NESCAC or 89% C), 100% if CF, 87% if lose out
C#8) Salisbury (19-6, 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 87% (13% CAC or 85% C), 94% if CF, 78% if lose out
A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, MA#4) 91% (47% CC or 83% C), 90% if CF, 70% if lose out
C#9) St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 2-5 vRRO, EA#2) 86% (29% LL or 81% C), 88% if CF, 66% if lose out

Bubble teams if no AQ (21) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
A) Scranton (19-6, 0.530, 5-3 vRRO, MA#7) 88% (40% LAND or 79% C), 95% if CF, 70% if lose out
C#10) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 80% (21% HCAC or 75% C), 84% if CF, 61% if lose out
A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.546, 1-3 vRRO, EA#5) 93% (72% E8 or 73% C), 83% if CF, 73% if lose out
A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2 vRRO, EA#3) 83% (39% SUNYAC or 72% C), 86% if CF, 61% if lose out
A) Guilford (20-5, 0.504, 2-2 vRRO, SO#1) 81% (36% ODAC or 70% C), 77% if CF, 50% if lose out
C#11) Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 1-4 vRRO, AT#3) 77% (26% CSAC or 69% C), 84% if CF, 51% if lose out
C#12) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2 vRRO, CE#4) 68% (8% WIAC or 65% C), 99% if CF, 18% if lose out
A) Lycoming (20-4, 0.528, 0-1 vRRO, MA#5) 84% (57% MACC or 62% C), 73% if CF, 46% if lose out
C#13) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-2 vRRO, SO#2) 70% (21% ASC or 62% C), 98% if CF, 44% if lose out
C#14) MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4 vRRO, NE#9) 61% (15% NEWMAC or 55% C), 66% if CF, 44% if lose out
C#15) New Jersey City (19-6, 0.506, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 59% (11% NJAC or 53% C), 88% if CF, 35% if lose out
C#16) Endicott (20-5, 0.511, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 70% (35% CCC or 53% C), 60% if CF, 27% if lose out
A) C-M-S (17-3, 0.486, 2-2 vRRO, WE#5) 71% (39% SCIAC or 53% C), 82% if CF, 12% if lose out
A) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 67% (34% CCIW or 51% C), 99% if CF, 2% if lose out
---current projected bubble line (with about 5 pool C bids lost via conference tournament "bid thieves")---
C#17) Wooster (18-7, 0.535, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 58% (24% NCAC or 45% C), 84% if CF, 4% if lose out
A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0 vRRO, CE#7) 80% (66% NACC or 40% C), 50% if CF, 27% if lose out
C#18) Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-4 vRRO, EA#4) 58% (32% SUNYAC or 38% C), 37% if CF, 26% if lose out
C#19) Emory (17-7, 0.545, 2-3 vRRO, SO#4) 38% (0% UAA or 38% C), 98% if CF
C#20) Amherst (17-7, 0.601, 5-5 vRRO, NE#5) 33% (0% NESCAC or 33% C), 33% if CF, 33% if lose out
C#21) John Carroll (17-7, 0.562, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 49% (26% OAC or 31% C), 65% if CF
A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.500, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 66% (56% MWC or 21% C), 33% if CF, 15% if lose out

Longshots for Pool C (7) (10%-19% if no AQ)
A) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.523, 0-1 vRRO, WE#3) 51% (40% MIAC or 19% C), 24% if CF, 7% if lose out
C#22) Cal Lutheran (17-6, 0.500, 3-3 vRRO, WE) 47% (35% SCIAC or 19% C), 39% if CF
C#23) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2 vRRO, CE) 33% (19% CCIW or 17% C), 48% if CF
C#24) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 36% (27% ASC or 13% C), 26% if CF, 3% if lose out
C#25) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, WE#6) 45% (38% IIAC or 12% C), 30% if CF, 3% if lose out
C#26) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4 vRRO, CE#8) 41% (33% CCIW or 11% C), 24% if CF
C#27) Denison (21-4, 0.464, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 25% (16% NCAC or 10% C), 25% if CF, 1% if lose out

Real Longshots for Pool C (would be 10%+ if lost conference final)
C) Moravian (17-6, 0.512, 4-4 vRRO, MA) 29% (22% LAND or 9% C), 25% if CF
A) Ohio Wesleyan (19-6, 0.506, 3-4 vRRO, GL#9) 55% (51% NCAC or 9% C), 16% if CF, 2% if lose out
C) Ripon (18-5, 0.484, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 26% (21% MWC or 7% C), 15% if CF, 1% if lose out
C) TCNJ (18-7, 0.515, 3-4 vRRO, AT#5) 24% (18% NJAC or 7% C), 16% if CF
A) E Connecticut (17-8, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, NE#11) 53% (50% LEC or 4% C), 10% if CF
C) Keene State (17-8, 0.575, 2-3 vRRO, NE#8) 24% (22% LEC or 3% C), 12% if CF
C) Roger Williams (19-6, 0.470, 2-1 vRRO, NE) 14% (11% CCC or 3% C), 20% if CF
C) Emory & Henry (17-7, 0.526, 1-4 vRRO, SO#8) 17% (16% ODAC or 1% C), 10% if CF

I think Augustana, Eau Claire and John Carroll are the only three teams on this list that lost tonight.