Pool C

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Mid-Atlantic seems high considering the SOS numbers in this region plus a lot of losses.

[fantastic50]

As of today, expected Pool C berths, by region...

New England 5.10 (at least 3 for the NESCAC)
Mid-Atlantic 3.25
Central 2.95
Great Lakes 2.73
South 2.38
West 2.06
Atlantic 1.68
East 0.86

Sounds low for the Central with 7 teams in the running from just the WIAC and CCIW.

That surprised me, too, as I view the Central and NE as the two strongest regions.  I think that the problem is that both the WIAC and CCIW are so strong that they are cannibalizing their own leagues, in terms of Pool C resumes (and no other conference in the Central has a legitimate Pool C candidate).

In the WIAC, Platteville is in (99% Pool C, if needed), Oshkosh looks decent (75%), and Stevens Point is on the bubble (58%).
Whitewater needs to win everything except the WIAC final to become a bubble team, and River Falls needs a win over Platteville (whether this week or in the WIAC semis) to have a decent shot.  The league is just over 50/50 to get 3 bids total.

On the CCIW side, Augustana is in (99%), while IWU (46%) and Wheaton (37%) are on the wrong side of the bubble at the moment.  North Central would get to the bubble only by beating both the other bubble teams and then winning a semifinal, heavily damaging other teams' chances in doing so.  I think that someone will emerge as a Pool C team, but a 3rd team from this league is looking less likely. 

Overall, my guess is that the WIAC and CCIW only get five bids (including Pool A) between them, even though they have a combined 9 in my top 30 rankings.

Here's the current breakdown of potential multi-bid conferences.  While I am sold on four from the NESCAC, I am skeptical of them getting a 5th bid, particularly if their bubble teams (Amherst and Tufts) get knocked out in the quarterfinals.
NESCAC 4.98 (Williams 29%)
CC 2.70 (Johns Hopkins 40%)
WIAC 2.61 (UW-Platteville 62%)
OAC 2.55 (John Carroll 50%)
CCIW 2.30 (Augustana 40%)
NCAC 2.18 (Wittenberg 59%)
CAC 2.16 (York (Pa.) 36%)
MIAC 2.13 (St. John's 62%)
NJAC 2.12 (Ramapo 43%)
UAA 1.96 (Washington U. 99%)
NWC 1.79 (Whitman 75%)
LEC 1.79 (Eastern Connecticut 62%)
SUNYAC 1.64 (Plattsburgh State 56%)
ODAC 1.60 (Randolph-Macon 38%)
ASC 1.57 (Sul Ross State 37%)
CSAC 1.56 (Cabrini 50%)
MACC 1.39 (Albright 44%)
USAC 1.25 (Maryville (Tenn.) 47%)
LL 1.21 (Hobart 73%)
NEWMAC 1.20 (MIT 33%)
IIAC 1.13 (Nebraska Wesleyan 58%)
CCC 1.08 (Nichols 52%)
MASCAC 1.05 (Salem State 72%)
MWC 1.04 (Ripon 33%)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The only way I see the CAC getting two bids is if York loses in the title game. Centennial, maybe two bids, but SOS numbers in that conference are pretty low. It might help now if F&M is not part of the equation.

Something to consider... the regional rankings will take on a very different look this week. That could change your numbers dramatically.

[fantastic50]

Mid-Atlantic seems high considering the SOS numbers in this region plus a lot of losses.

I had the same reaction, again thinking that the New England and Central regions would have a wide margin on everyone else.

I would be shocked if the Centennial failed to get two bids, and they might get all three contenders in, with each having 20+ victories and multiple wins vRRO before the conference tournament begins.  F&M looks the most iffy, but I'm projecting them at 20-6 (.769) / .532 SOS / 3-4 vRRO, which might be enough.

I think that CNU is more likely than not to slip in from the CAC, along with York, even if York wins the AQ.  I'm showing 20-7 (.741) / .544 / 4-2 for the Captains, assuming they don't win the tournament.

These two leagues have only one team in my top 30 (Hopkins, at #14), but given the current selection process, the lack of quality depth leading to better records may mean that the CAC & CC get just as many berths as the much stronger WIAC/CCIW pair.

The vRRO can certainly change from week to week, but I am accounting for that in my projections.  Of course, each year's committee can value different things.  I make some attempt to include that uncertainty in the model, but it's no guarantee.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

CNU is interesting... could sneak in. Not positive.

As for the vRRO... what I am trying to say is since it isn't even a factor in last week's rankings... it will shake up rankings this week a lot (along with all the losses). I think trying to use Week 1 to start making projections is risky.

[fantastic50]

Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.

NESCAC and Centennial chances are apples and oranges.

[dunkin3117]

NESCAC getting 3+ bids while a conference like the IIAC gets 1 every year is ludicrous in my opinion.  A league that plays each other once and those top teams can rack up W's against the bottom half of the league, where a league like the IIAC is playing everyone twice and beating up on each other.  Roast me on that if you want, but I truly believe that the IIAC is better than a 1 bid league.  The 6 seed Wartburg proved that last year (or so I thought).

[fantastic50]

NESCAC getting 3+ bids while a conference like the IIAC gets 1 every year is ludicrous in my opinion.  A league that plays each other once and those top teams can rack up W's against the bottom half of the league, where a league like the IIAC is playing everyone twice and beating up on each other.  Roast me on that if you want, but I truly believe that the IIAC is better than a 1 bid league.  The 6 seed Wartburg proved that last year (or so I thought).

The NESCAC's scheduling is a different issue, but I agree that the IIAC is a deep league, far better top to bottom than the Centennial, for example.  I have Nebraska Wesleyan #7, and six IIAC teams are in my top 100. 

The quality of the conference suggests that they ought to get two bids, but no team has the right combination of wins & non-conference scheduling to be a solid Pool C candidate.  If Loras wins out except for losing to NWU in the final, they would be a bubble team at roughly .741/.559/2-3.  Otherwise, it's probably a one-bid league, unfortunately.

[fantastic50]

Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.

NESCAC and Centennial chances are apples and oranges.

You're right.  That's a poor comparison on my part.

[nescac1]

Regarding NESCAC, year after year, the NESCAC teams prove they belong in the tourney.   Now, I have no doubt that some leagues get the shaft and deserve more squads than they place in the NCAA tourney (e.g., WIAC in certain years).  But if the goal is to put the best 40 teams represented in the tourney (plus, say, 24, who win weaker leagues), certainly, in many years NESCAC will have between 3-4, maybe 5, of those 40 teams.  As would CCIW and WIAC.  A small number of other leagues like OAC, ODAC, MIAC would often have 2-3.   Last year, recall, two NESCAC teams made it to the Elite 8, one more into the Sweet 16 before losing in a close game to the future National Champ.  Over the past eight years, eight NESCAC teams have played in the Final Four, including three title game appearances and one championship.  In two of those years, two different NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four.  If NESCAC teams got selected, then consistently underperformed in the tourney, it would be totally fair to say NESCAC is overrepresented.  But this year, I think NESCAC pretty clearly has 4 teams that are solid top 25 squads, and two others that aren't far behind them.  I'd say that the D3 selection criteria often hurts teams from power conferences OTHER than NESCAC, but gets it exactly right regarding NESCAC participation in the tourney.  That may be unfair to those other leagues, but I think it's also unfair to argue that NESCAC is disproportionately represented when the NESCAC teams who get into the tournament generally prove they belong there based on talent and results. 

Now it is certainly possible that NESCAC's schedule helps it in terms of earning NCAA berths.  But if NESCAC played a different schedule, and fewer NESCAC teams were selected for the tourney, then the tourney would be weaker overall.  It's pretty rare that the third and fourth best NESCAC teams are not better than the second-best teams in the vast majority of the leagues, nationwide  Just like if there were 4-5 WIAC teams in the tourney every year, the tourney would be stronger overall, because it's pretty rare that the third and fourth best WIAC teams are not likewise better than the second-best teams from the vast majority of leagues.  If the best IIAC team was consistently making it to the Elite 8 or Final 4, there would be more of a case for arguing that IIAC was getting the shaft.  But I can't recall many IIAC teams making deep tourney runs ...

[Gregory Sager]

Regarding NESCAC, year after year, the NESCAC teams prove they belong in the tourney.   Now, I have no doubt that some leagues get the shaft and deserve more squads than they place in the NCAA tourney (e.g., WIAC in certain years).  But if the goal is to put the best 40 teams represented in the tourney (plus, say, 24, who win weaker leagues), certainly, in many years NESCAC will have between 3-4, maybe 5, of those 40 teams.  As would CCIW and WIAC.  A small number of other leagues like OAC, ODAC, MIAC would often have 2-3.   Last year, recall, two NESCAC teams made it to the Elite 8, one more into the Sweet 16 before losing in a close game to the future National Champ.  Over the past eight years, eight NESCAC teams have played in the Final Four, including three title game appearances and one championship.  In two of those years, two different NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four.  If NESCAC teams got selected, then consistently underperformed in the tourney, it would be totally fair to say NESCAC is overrepresented.  But this year, I think NESCAC pretty clearly has 4 teams that are solid top 25 squads, and two others that aren't far behind them.  I'd say that the D3 selection criteria often hurts teams from power conferences OTHER than NESCAC, but gets it exactly right regarding NESCAC participation in the tourney.  That may be unfair to those other leagues, but I think it's also unfair to argue that NESCAC is disproportionately represented when the NESCAC teams who get into the tournament generally prove they belong there based on talent and results. 

Now it is certainly possible that NESCAC's schedule helps it in terms of earning NCAA berths.  But if NESCAC played a different schedule, and fewer NESCAC teams were selected for the tourney, then the tourney would be weaker overall.  It's pretty rare that the third and fourth best NESCAC teams are not better than the second-best teams in the vast majority of the leagues, nationwide  Just like if there were 4-5 WIAC teams in the tourney every year, the tourney would be stronger overall, because it's pretty rare that the third and fourth best WIAC teams are not likewise better than the second-best teams from the vast majority of leagues.  If the best IIAC team was consistently making it to the Elite 8 or Final 4, there would be more of a case for arguing that IIAC was getting the shaft.  But I can't recall many IIAC teams making deep tourney runs ...

"Certainly possible"?

The ultimate apples-and-oranges argument is to compare the NESCAC to the other power conferences (i.e., WIAC and CCIW), because those two leagues play double round-robins and thus cannibalize themselves, while the single round-robin NESCAC doesn't.

Is it time yet for our annual argument, nescac1, or should we just cut-and-paste last year's?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Better idea... let's just skip over it and "pretend" it happened.

Thank you.

[nescac1]

Yup, let's pretend our annual argument in which folks target NESCAC (but never any other league) for unfair criticism despite NESCAC teams proving themselves worthy in the tourney never happened.  Except, as usual, NESCAC is already being attacked, and I'm the only person who ever comes to the league's defense.  Folks were bitching about NESCAC last year, and then NESCAC put two teams in the Elite 8 with a third narrowly missing.  Folks will bitch about NESCAC this year, and next year, and the year after, without ever paying attention to how NESCAC teams actually perform once selected for the tourney, which I would like to think should be of some relevance.  I fail to see how it is "ludicrous" for NESCAC to receive three or more bids when NESCAC has 3-4 of the top 25 teams in the country.  I'd call that "fair."  It may be ludicious, on the other hand, that more leagues don't get 3-4 bids annually ...

But let me make it crystal clear -- while it's entirely speculative what would happen if NESCAC played more conference games (I still say a double round robin in an 11 team league is sort of ridiculous, since then there would be far too few chances to play other interesting opponents), I grant that this would most likely result in fewer NESCAC teams in the tournament.  That is entirely besides the point of my argument, which is, that would be a bad thing were it to occur.  My argument, and I've never seen a good counter, is that the number of NESCAC teams in the tournament accurately reflects their ability levels relative to the rest of Division 3.  If it didn't, they would generally lose far earlier in the tournament.  If fewer NESCAC teams were represented, the selection process and criteria would just hurt NESCAC unfairly, as it currently hurts some other leagues unfairly.  I think there should be MORE CCIW and WIAC teams, that they shouldn't be punished by playing more league games, and it would be great if there was some way to make that happen via tweaks to the methodology.   But I do think that to demonstrate that some other league is being unfairly harmed by the selection process, the very first question to ask is, how do the teams from that league perform that DO get in?  For example, the fact that WIAC teams seem to win a national title just about every second or third year, and the fact that the league is often very balanced, suggests to me that WIAC is underrepresented in the tourney.  CCIW likewise performs very well on an annual basis.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

nescac1, I usually would side with your points... or at the very least acknowlege that the NESCAC does what it wants which it is entitled to do... and that teams usually prove themselves... except two things:

- First off, it is also well considered that NESCAC schools tend have an easier bracket than many of the other top teams meaning they have a better chance to get further. I am not taking anything from the results. The NESCAC has gotten to the final four and made it clear they are good there.
- But can we chill on the "tournament won't be better or any good if the NESCAC has less teams" gambit? That is not a fair representation what-so-ever. You have no idea who the teams that would have been in instead of one or two NESCACs and how they would or would not have been considering they could have come from any location in the country. Furthermore, usually the teams that make deep runs in the NCAA from the NESCAC tend to be the top teams, not the third, fourth, or fifth team selected from the conference. If those teams were making runs to the final four then so be it. Amherst and Wesleyan both lost in the first game last year. Did that make the tournament better having them in it? Pretty sure a lot of teams could have lost the first game as well.

Just don't ad the hyperbole. It just makes your argument seem arrogant and snobbish. You are better than that.

The NESCAC does have an advantage in getting teams in the NCAA tournament with the way their conference schedule is structured. That is a fact. You can argue that the NESCAC deserves to have more teams in because they are good, but it is going to ring hallow against the CCIW, WIAC, even NCAC, OAC, and others like the ODAC (in the past) because they beat each other up and lose some of their ability to position themselves like the NESCAC. I don't think making an argument that because the NESCAC deserves more bids it should not play a double-round robin. I guess we should do the same in the other conferences and when the NESCAC loses bids, what would you say then?

BTW - I am certainly not a fan of a full double-round-robin of games in the NESCAC. I would be more a fan of the ODAC (MIAC women) style. The only one that has argued against the idea to me (publicly) is Hamilton who doesn't love the idea of the travel. I understand that point, but also shake my head considering the travel schedules of the ASC, SCAC, and others... but I digress.

Just treat the argument not as something that the "NESCAC is best and we should all bow down" and what not.