Pool C

[deiscanton]

I appreciate them using the last public ranking since we don't get to see the final set until after the bracket selections are made.

I agree with Gordon Mann on this one.  The ranking immediately preceding the final ranking is the last public ranking before selections are made.  When the RACs are working on their regional rankings after the conference tournaments are complete (or after the UAA concludes match day 14-- no conf tourney in UAA), a particular RAC when doing their final regional ranking is not going to know how the other 7 RACs are ranking their respective teams.  The national committee has the final say in the regional rankings, and it is easier for fans to follow the selection process with this definition of regional rankings for all d3 team sports, IMO.

The women's basketball committee seemed to be working with this current definition of regionally ranked opponent when placing Calvin ahead of Carnegie Mellon in the final Great Lakes rankings last year despite neither team playing each other or having a common d3 opponent.  As Dave McHugh commented to me back in November, 2017, nobody really had an objection then.  I chose not to object to the decision last season, either. 

[fantastic50]

With conference tournaments just four weeks away, I got the simulations up and running.  This is still a work in progress, but I hope to build out more content (and fix any errors that may be present) as time allows.  Of course, if the NCAA changes the SOS calculation to what seemed to be originally intended, that would cause a substantial shake-up.

Just four teams already seem to be near-locks for a Pool C berth, should they fail to win the AQ from their conferences: Hamilton, Wittenberg, York, and Whitman. 

I will be updating the info here... http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

[me]

Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

NCAA did not change the calculation for the SOS, but keep in mind that secondary criteria now includes a non-conference SOS number.

[fantastic50]

Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.

Not an assumption... non-conference SOS is secondary criteria.

[fantastic50]

Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.

Not an assumption... non-conference SOS is secondary criteria.

Got it ... my assumption, knowing that this is a secondary criterion, is that it will be only applied in extreme cases, or in all-other-things-equal bubble decisions.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I bet it will be used more than that... when we look at teams from about pick ten onward (on average), secondary criteria starts making an appearance. I think it will be a significant conversation marker.

[Greek Tragedy]

Considering Stevens Point played Augustana, Whitman and Wartburg, I vote for non-conference SOS to be primary criteria, if it helps the Pointers out. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Considering Stevens Point played Augustana, Whitman and Wartburg, I vote for non-conference SOS to be primary criteria, if it helps the Pointers out. 

LOL I am sure you would, but sadly... it will not be primary criteria.

Well played, though. +k

[fantastic50]

It's interesting that half of the toughest non-conference schedules (by this metric) are in the Great Lakes, with Hope, Alma, Calvin, Wooster, Transylvania, Capital, and Marietta all having an ncSOS of .629 or higher.

[deiscanton]

Regarding non-conference SOS:

As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.

[ronk]

Regarding non-conference SOS:

As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.

Did they offer any evidence that either(reduce # of conference games or negative budgetary impact) would happen? I don't see the majority of coaches trying to upgrade their current non-conference schedule let alone dropping conference games to do it and wrt negative budgetary impact, many schools could reduce their travel expenses(hotel,bus) by playing more local non-conference than conference foes. 

[Knightstalker]

Regarding non-conference SOS:

As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.

Did they offer any evidence that either(reduce # of conference games or negative budgetary impact) would happen? I don't see the majority of coaches trying to upgrade their current non-conference schedule let alone dropping conference games to do it and wrt negative budgetary impact, many schools could reduce their travel expenses(hotel,bus) by playing more local non-conference than conference foes.

The NJAC did this several years ago.  They split the conference into north and south divisions with five teams each.  The teams played their other divisional opponents twice and the teams in the other division once.  This was done to allow the teams to expand their out of conference schedules and possibly give them a better chance at a pool C bid.  It was abandoned after just a few seasons.

[smedindy]

The smaller tuition-dependent schools and smaller D3 state schools don't have big travel budgets. You see it in football too.