Pool C

[fantastic50]

Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi

Two things stand out:
- Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
- UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.

Do you have this for all Pool C selections for the last few years.  Just to see how far outside the norm UWO would be.

Yes, that plot & the original analysis is a few pages back... http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915

It will take multiple years to tell this, but if WP & SOS remain the key factors and the selection of UWO indicates a shift in how low-WP, high-SOS teams are looked at, then this new model might work.  Among other teams, Concordia(TX) had a poor record (1-4) vs RRO, but UW-Eau Claire (3-3) might have a case today. 
http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH

[Greek Tragedy]

I presume you mean Oshkosh?

[fantastic50]

Yes, in one spot. Fixed!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi

Two things stand out:
- Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
- UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.

Do you have this for all Pool C selections for the last few years.  Just to see how far outside the norm UWO would be.

Yes, that plot & the original analysis is a few pages back... http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915

It will take multiple years to tell this, but if WP & SOS remain the key factors and the selection of UWO indicates a shift in how low-WP, high-SOS teams are looked at, then this new model might work.  Among other teams, Concordia(TX) had a poor record (1-4) vs RRO, but UW-Eau Claire (3-3) might have a case today. 
http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH

So, UWO in is actually the committee sticking closer to the criteria than they have in the past.  Creating the arbitrary .667 line, while certainly justifiable, is more subjective than objective.  When we were mocking this out, using the 2 wins = .03 SOS comparison, Oshkosh came out ahead of Keene.  By the numbers, you really can't argue it - the question comes when we ask how many losses are too many.  The committee has pretty firmly said this year than wins matter and losses don't (so long as you have wins).  We can argue about whether that's good or not, but we can argue about every single metric we use.  It is what it is.

[Greek Tragedy]

Crossed out teams are conference winners and bolded teams are Pool C

ATLANTIC   Team   In-region   Overall
1   Neumann   25-2   25-2
2   Ramapo   25-2   25-2
3   New Jersey City   21-7   21-7
4   Cabrini   19-6   19-7
5   Staten Island   21-5   21-6
6   TCNJ   18-8   18-8
7   Misericordia   20-7   20-7
8   Rowan   17-10   17-10
   NCAA rankings data       
CENTRAL        
1   UW-River Falls   22-3   24-3
2   Washington U.   20-5   20-5
3   UW-Whitewater   20-6   21-6
4   Augustana    19-8   19-8
5   Benedictine   23-3   23-4
6   UW-Oshkosh   17-10   17-10
7   Illinois Wesleyan   17-8   17-8
8   UW-Eau Claire   17-8   18-8
   NCAA rankings data
   
EAST        
1   Rochester   21-4   21-4
2   St. John Fisher   22-5   22-5
3   Oswego State   21-6   21-6
4   Skidmore   19-7   19-7
5   St. Lawrence   20-6   20-6
6   Brockport   19-7   19-7
7   Cortland   17-9   17-9
8   Union   16-9   16-10
   NCAA rankings data
   
GREAT LAKES        
1   Marietta   24-4   24-4
2   Hanover   21-3   23-3
3   Wooster   21-7   21-7
4   Hope   20-5   21-6
5   Mount St. Joseph   20-6   20-7
6   Ohio Wesleyan   21-7   21-7
7   John Carroll   17-8   17-8
8   Denison   22-5   22-5
9   Thomas More   21-6   22-6
   NCAA rankings data
   
MIDDLE ATLANTIC        
1   Christopher Newport   25-2   25-2
2   Scranton   21-6   21-6
3   Susquehanna   20-5   21-5
4   Swarthmore   22-5   22-5
5   Lycoming   22-4   23-4
6   Salisbury   20-7   20-7
7   Moravian   18-7   19-8
8   Catholic   17-9   17-9
   NCAA rankings data
   
NORTHEAST        
1   Middlebury   24-3   24-3
2   Babson   25-2   25-2
3   Tufts   20-6   20-6
4   Williams   19-8   19-8
5   Eastern Connecticut   20-8   20-8
6   Wesleyan   19-6   19-6
7   Amherst   17-7   17-7
8   MIT   21-6   21-6
9   Keene State   19-9   19-9
10   Endicott   22-6   22-6
11   Mass-Dartmouth   17-10   17-10
   NCAA rankings data
   
SOUTH        
1   Hardin-Simmons   21-6   22-6
2   Guilford   23-5   23-5
3   Emory   18-7   18-7
4   LeTourneau   20-5   22-6
5   Emory & Henry   19-8   20-8
6   Virginia Wesleyan   19-9   19-9
7   Concordia (Texas)   17-7   19-8
8   Texas Lutheran   19-9   19-9
   NCAA rankings data
   
WEST           
1   Whitman   27-0   27-0
2   Whitworth   23-4   23-4
3   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   22-4
4   Wartburg   17-9   19-9
5   St. Thomas   19-7   19-7
6   Bethel   20-6   21-6
7   Loras   18-8   18-8
8   Cal Lutheran   19-7   20-7

[Smitty Oom]

And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.

Is that because they had one extra win, which is against a RRO who happened to be one of the best in the country though? If we are giving them the title of "bid thief" we are assuming they go into Pool C, where they lose the NEWMAC championship game against Babson. You know more than I do, Dave, but not winning that game could have dropped them behind Keene and possibly Endicott... Or am I off?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.

Is that because they had one extra win, which is against a RRO who happened to be one of the best in the country though? If we are giving them the title of "bid thief" we are assuming they go into Pool C, where they lose the NEWMAC championship game against Babson. You know more than I do, Dave, but not winning that game could have dropped them behind Keene and possibly Endicott... Or am I off?

I am not sure... but they were in front of Endicott in the final regional rankings. You could certainly argue they would have been behind Endicott had they lost... except, those rankings were basically put together before MIT completed the win. I think the RAC and the national committee expected MIT to lose and ranked accordingly. This is very common on Sundays for those wondering. RACs meet in the morning and national committee starts in the early afternoon. They have to do work despite the games ongoing.

Anyway... MIT was 10th prior to their game tipping of. Doubt they would have dropped behind Endicott with a loss... it was expected for good reason.

[bopol]

My two misses were UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas and I had UW-Eau Claire and Mt. St. Joseph in.

Personally, I think Mt. St. Joseph has a beef.  They had a really good 20-6 D3 record (with a loss to an average D1 Evansville team) and a decent SOS.  They should have been ahead of St. Thomas which had another D3 loss and not much of an SOS advantage.

I don't have a problem with Oshkosh getting a pick, but I just didn't think the committee would go there.  I remember when Carthage had a similar WP and SOS and didn't get in because they 'didn't beat' anyone (they had beaten Top 3 Wash U that year).  I honestly just didn't think the committee would put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire, so I assumed a different order in the Central when I made my picks.  With full knowledge, I think it is the right choice.

I'd give the committee an A- for their Pool C picks.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just FYI... Mt St Joe's loss to Evansville isn't really considered. They are 20-5 in the eyes of the committee unless they are splitting hairs so badly and one of the teams they are comparing also played Evansville. I realize that may help the argument... but just pointing that out.

Also people forget Eau Claire lost twice to Oshkosh... there was some justifications in the end to put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire especially since the SOS difference made their mutual records even.

[AppletonRocks]

How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC? 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC?

Normally, there's two or three teams in real rebuilding mode, but this year there was just one - Colby wasn't great - but even then it was a very competitive league top to bottom. That's why their SOS was so high - even Colby was 9-4 out of conference.

[ziggy]

How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC?

Normally, there's two or three teams in real rebuilding mode, but this year there was just one - Colby wasn't great - but even then it was a very competitive league top to bottom. That's why their SOS was so high - even Colby was 9-4 out of conference.

Colby is the only NESCAC school outside the Massey top 150. I think that is pretty remarkable.

[fantastic50]

My final Pool C picks...

1) Babson (0.926, 0.585, 5-2, NE)
2) Susquehanna (0.800, 0.559, 5-5, MA)
3) Tufts (0.769, 0.570, 4-3, NE)
4) Rochester (0.840, 0.538, 4-2, EA)
5) Whitworth (0.852, 0.546, 1-3, WE)
6) Williams (0.704, 0.602, 7-5, NE)
7) Amherst (0.708, 0.602, 5-5, NE)
8) Wesleyan (CT) (0.760, 0.561, 4-3, NE)
9) New Jersey City (.750, 0.533, 6-3, AT)
10) UW-Whitewater (0.769, 0.568, 1-3, CE)
11) Emory (0.720, 0.551, 2-3, SO)
12) Hope (0.800, 0.525, 2-1, GL) 97%
13) Salisbury (0.741, 0.548, 3-4, MA) 96%
14) Cabrini (0.760, 0.532, 4-4, AT) 83%
15) Mt St Joseph (0.760, 0.522, 2-3, GL) 74%
16) Skidmore (0.731, 0.525, 5-1, EA) 70%
17) St Lawrence (0.760, 0.524, 3-5, EA) 64%
18) St Thomas (MN) (0.731, 0.530, 2-2, WE) 73%
19) Augustana (.704, 0.543, 2-3, CE)[/b] 62%
20) UW-Eau Claire (0.680, 0.572, 3-3, CE) 62%
21) Keene State (0.679, 0.578, 1-3, NE) 37%

Left at the table
AT) TCNJ (0.692, 0.519, 2-4) 1%
CE) Illinois Wesleyan (0.680, 0.557, 6-2) 45%
EA) Brockport (0.731, 0.522, 2-3) 34%
GL) John Carroll (0.680, 0.560, 1-4) 3%
MA) Moravian (0.720, 0.530, 4-5) 3%
SO) LeTourneau (0.815, 0.499, 3-2) 57%
WE) Nebraska Wesleyan (0.708, 0.524, 2-2) 45%

I also got 19 of 21 correct, with St Thomas right, but had MSJ & UWEC in, instead of Endicott and UWO.  I didn't have a great sense of how the Central rankings would shake down, which greatly affected the UWO/IWU/UWEC situation.  Above, I have added in my probabilities, which weren't part of the original post.

Besides those listed above as on the table at the end of the process, others I thought had a chance were UWO (29%, despite my model heavily penalizing the low WP), Concordia-TX (33%), Nebraska Wesleyan (25%), Endicott (16%), and Loras (14%).

It was interesting to hear committee chair Kevin Vande Streek say on Hoopsville that the last two teams chosen were St Lawrence and Cabrini; among those of us who did mock selections, there was a consensus that Cabrini seemed fairly safe.

[Smitty Oom]

It was interesting to hear committee chair Kevin Vande Streek say on Hoopsville that the last two teams chosen were St Lawrence and Cabrini; among those of us who did mock selections, there was a consensus that Cabrini seemed fairly safe.

These teams are quite happy about the expanded 64 team field!  Also interesting to note that UWO would have made it with last years 62 team field.