Pool C

[gordonmann]

Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know.

[Gregory Sager]

Nicely done, Gordon. Thanks.

[Ralph Turner]

Nicely done, Gordon. Thanks.

Yes and +1!

We on the island of Texas are grateful that the committee recognized the strength of LeTourneau last year who beat Hanover, 85-77 in the first round and lost at host Emory 83-82 in round 2.

[Greek Tragedy]

Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know.

+1 Good stuff!

[monsoon]

Thanks, Gordon!

[ronk]

 Well done, Gordon.
  I'll call it the Columbo effect - instead of just finding something(average position in a region to get a Pool C) that shouldn't have been at the scene of the crime, you went 180 degrees and also found something that should have been there but wasn't(the high probability that unranked in week 1 leads to nonselection for Pool C).

[middhoops]

"The Columbo Effect".  LOVE it.
Well described.

[fantastic50]

Just found & fixed an issue with my post from Wednesday evening, in that (here and on the website) teams that with a "bubble-in" status were listed as "bubble-out".  Here's the updated version, through Friday's games.  Teams are listed in order of current NCAA regional rankings.

Northeast region
1) MIT (20-2, 10-1 NEWMAC, 0.563 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) NEWMAC favorite
2) Williams (19-4, 6-3 NESCAC, 0.585 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
3) Nichols (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.517 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) CCC favorite
4) Middlebury (17-5, 7-2 NESCAC, 0.598 SOS, 0.577 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
5) Gordon (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.490 SOS, 0.522 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) Strong contenders
6) Hamilton (19-3, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.529 SOS, 0.486 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) Strong contenders
7) Eastern_Connecticut (17-5, 11-2 LEC, 0.547 SOS, 0.563 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) LEC favorite
8) Wesleyan (15-8, 5-4 NESCAC, 0.609 SOS, 0.577 ncSOS, 5-5 vRRO) Bubble-out
9) WPI (17-5, 8-3 NEWMAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.530 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
10) Keene_State (16-7, 11-3 LEC, 0.565 SOS, 0.642 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
11) Amherst (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.531 SOS, 0.457 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) NESCAC favorite
NR) Maine-Farmington (14-7, 11-1 NAC, 0.463 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NAC favorite
NR) New_England_College (18-3, 13-1 NECC, 0.440 SOS, 0.419 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NECC favorite
NR) Salem_State (15-8, 9-1 MASCAC, 0.537 SOS, 0.608 ncSOS, 0-5 vRRO) MASCAC favorite
NR) Suffolk (15-6, 6-1 GNAC, 0.455 SOS, 0.450 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) GNAC favorite

East region
1) Oswego_State (18-3, 13-1 SUNYAC, 0.515 SOS, 0.525 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) SUNYAC favorite
2) Plattsburgh_State (18-4, 12-3 SUNYAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO) Bubble-in
3) Rochester (17-4, 7-3 UAA, 0.533 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS, 6-1 vRRO) Bubble-in
4) Nazareth (16-5, 10-2 E8, 0.518 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) Longshots
5) St._Lawrence (15-7, 12-3 LL, 0.527 SOS, 0.609 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
6) Brockport (13-8, 9-5 SUNYAC, 0.550 SOS, 0.579 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Longshots
7) Cortland (15-5, 9-5 SUNYAC, 0.507 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Longshots
8) Hobart (13-9, 10-5 LL, 0.536 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
NR) Alfred (14-4, 9-2 E8, 0.463 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) E8 favorite
NR) Morrisville_State (16-4, 11-1 NEAC, 0.479 SOS, 0.499 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NEAC favorite
NR) Skidmore (14-6, 12-3 LL, 0.540 SOS, 0.608 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) LL favorite

Atlantic region
1) New_Jersey_City (18-5, 13-3 NJAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) NJAC favorite
2) Rowan (16-6, 11-5 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 6-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
3) Ramapo (16-7, 10-6 NJAC, 0.550 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 5-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
4) Montclair_State (14-9, 9-7 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.542 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
5) DeSales (16-5, 9-2 MACF, 0.496 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MACF favorite
6) Yeshiva (16-5, 14-2 SKY, 0.474 SOS, 0.525 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) SKY favorite
7) Baruch (18-5, 12-2 CUNYAC, 0.448 SOS, 0.464 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) CUNYAC favorite
8) Farmingdale_State (15-7, 13-4 SKY, 0.491 SOS, 0.581 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
NR) Cairn (16-6, 9-0 CSAC, 0.388 SOS, 0.400 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) CSAC favorite
NR) Gwynedd_Mercy (16-7, 8-2 AEC, 0.488 SOS, 0.488 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) AEC favorite

Mid-Atlantic region
1) Swarthmore (19-3, 12-3 CC, 0.553 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) CC favorite
2) Christopher_Newport (19-3, 9-2 CAC, 0.534 SOS, 0.512 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) CAC favorite
3) Salisbury (16-6, 6-5 CAC, 0.573 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS, 4-5 vRRO) Bubble-in
4) Arcadia (19-3, 13-0 MACC, 0.524 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) MACC favorite
5) York_(Pa.) (16-6, 9-2 CAC, 0.558 SOS, 0.522 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO) Bubble-in
6) Mary_Washington (15-7, 7-4 CAC, 0.557 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
7) Johns_Hopkins (14-8, 11-4 CC, 0.556 SOS, 0.640 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Longshots
8) Scranton (18-4, 7-4 LAND, 0.519 SOS, 0.499 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) Bubble-in
NR) Drew (17-5, 9-2 LAND, 0.518 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) LAND favorite

South region
1) Randolph-Macon (21-2, 13-1 ODAC, 0.536 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) ODAC favorite
2) Centre (18-3, 11-1 SAA, 0.523 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SAA favorite
3) Emory (17-4, 8-2 UAA, 0.575 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) UAA favorite
4) Guilford (16-6, 10-3 ODAC, 0.519 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Fringe contenders
5) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.517 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) Bubble-out
6) Lynchburg (18-5, 9-5 ODAC, 0.518 SOS, 0.450 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Longshots
7) Emory_and_Henry (15-7, 8-5 ODAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) Longshots
8) Texas-Dallas (17-4, 11-3 ASC, 0.486 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) ASC favorite
NR) Covenant (12-7, 14-0 USAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) USAC favorite
NR) Texas_Lutheran (15-5, 10-1 SCAC, 0.496 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) SCAC favorite

Great Lakes region
1) Marietta (18-4, 12-3 OAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.580 ncSOS, 6-3 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
2) Wooster (19-3, 14-1 NCAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.547 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) NCAC favorite
3) La_Roche (20-2, 15-0 AMCC, 0.505 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) AMCC favorite
4) Capital (18-4, 13-2 OAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO) OAC favorite
5) Wabash (16-4, 12-3 NCAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.496 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
6) Wittenberg (16-5, 11-4 NCAC, 0.513 SOS, 0.532 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
7) Mount_Union (18-4, 12-3 OAC, 0.496 SOS, 0.410 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
8) Wilmington (15-6, 11-4 OAC, 0.526 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS, 3-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
9) Baldwin_Wallace (15-7, 9-6 OAC, 0.524 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS, 0-7 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
NR) Albion (16-5, 9-2 MIAA, 0.469 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) MIAA favorite
NR) Hanover (15-5, 12-3 HCAC, 0.497 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) HCAC favorite
NR) St._Vincent (16-4, 11-2 PAC, 0.441 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) PAC favorite
NR) Thomas_More (10-7, 0-0 IND, 0.490 SOS, 0.488 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) IND favorite

Central region
1) Augustana (21-2, 13-1 CCIW, 0.554 SOS, 0.516 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) CCIW favorite
2) UW-Oshkosh (21-1, 11-0 WIAC, 0.533 SOS, 0.467 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) WIAC favorite
3) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-4, 10-3 CCIW, 0.522 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
4) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.570 SOS, 0.595 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
5) UW-La_Crosse (15-7, 8-3 WIAC, 0.584 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) Bubble-out
6) UW-Stevens_Point (15-6, 7-4 WIAC, 0.590 SOS, 0.567 ncSOS, 2-5 vRRO) Bubble-out
7) UW-Whitewater (14-8, 3-8 WIAC, 0.578 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
8) Chicago (13-8, 6-4 UAA, 0.564 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Longshots
NR) Greenville (15-6, 12-2 SLIAC, 0.444 SOS, 0.479 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SLIAC favorite
NR) MSOE (19-3, 14-3 NACC, 0.459 SOS, 0.361 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NACC favorite
NR) St._Norbert (16-6, 14-1 MWC, 0.502 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MWC favorite

West region
1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (21-1, 12-1 ARC, 0.576 SOS, 0.558 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) ARC favorite
2) Whitman (21-1, 13-0 NWC, 0.565 SOS, 0.571 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) NWC favorite
3) St._Thomas (21-1, 17-0 MIAC, 0.520 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) MIAC favorite
4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.594 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO) Strong contenders
5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.489 SOS, 0.530 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) SCIAC favorite
6) St._John's (18-4, 14-3 MIAC, 0.518 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
7) Whitworth (18-4, 10-3 NWC, 0.531 SOS, 0.487 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
8) Wartburg (13-6, 9-4 ARC, 0.569 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
NR) Northwestern_(Minn.) (16-6, 12-1 UMAC, 0.454 SOS, 0.463 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) UMAC favorite

[SaintPaulite]

Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know.

I read this quite a bit differently from some others.

It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

But...I actually read this as two things:
1. Validates my idea that for the most part if you're the top ranked Pool C team in your region, you're in good shape (unless your region just isn't very deep), and if you're not, you better get to work. I think the average rankings for the most part show that.

2. Being lower in the RRs is worse than being higher, but if you're in it, you're still well in it. And the trend is toward being more willing to change, not less. Most of the lowest bid recipients are from 2017 or 2018. I would be interested to know how many total Pool C bids went to teams ranked 5th or below (7th or below might be another informative bucket) in the first RRs by region. I think that might well be more instructive than just "were you in or were you not".

Not related to the above:
27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.

[SaintPaulite]

To fantastic50 (just don't want to quote the whole rankings post),

Thanks for the update. I was confused but figured I just didn't understand what was going on, which happens often enough haha.

I'm not sure Hamilton is really such a strong contender anymore. I think they really need a win, and Williams will really want one to stay in top 2 position which I'm not sure they will but I think they're likely to fall out if they lose.

It will be very interesting to see what the committee does with cases like Amherst and Mount Union, teams with poor schedules but they do have some regionally ranked games and the results have been good, and they got good wins already this week.

OTOH, I think the GL will be interesting too bc it looks to me like Marietta is a classic team whose numbers look better than they actually are. 6-3 vRRO is really misleading when you dig into those results. Lost 2 to Cap, beat LaRoche at home, split with Mount, beat Wilmington (and I think they'll get a dogfight today against them), beat BW twice who have 0 wins vRRO. Even if they win today I think they're a paper tiger, and if they lose today they may well have work to do to be a Pool C selection (given that Pool C means they took a conference tourney loss). I think they're more in the category with Williams as sort of "good but not that good and not so good that they should be a lock".

Speaking of Williams:
Wins vs. Yeshiva, Montclair, and 2 vs. Wesleyan who probably won't be in the next regional ranking. Not that impressive, y'all.
Ls vs. Amherst, Amherst, Middlebury.

Hamilton's 1 vRRO win is Keene State. Also nothing special at all, and they'll actually benefit from Wesleyan falling out bc they lost to them. If they were from any other league you'd laugh at the idea of them being a Pool C.

[Smitty Oom]

Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know.

Not related to the above:
27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.

Not really commenting on much here, but it raises the question, why not move a conference from the overcrowded NE to the empty East? They seem geographically close enough that this wouldn't be too much of move. The NE has the most at large bids because they have the most teams, and I understand the percentage of teams the NE has and the percentage of at-large bids the NE does not lineup... but would this help things at all?

[Greek Tragedy]

So based on the statement I've been seeing, "they've removed the SOS/.700 WP% comparison" does this mean the .700 WP% trumps the SOS every time? I guess I don't really understand that statement that they are removing that comparison. 

[fantastic50]

Before, if Team A had a record two games better than Team B (e.g. 24-3 vs 22-5) but Team B had the higher SOS by .03 (e.g. .512 for A and .542 for B), then these two teams would be considered about the same, if all other things were equal.  That "2 wins = .030 SOS" guideline is no longer in place.  However, based on last week's rankings, I think that it still provides a decent estimate of the relative value of WP versus SOS.

The .700 WP issue is a different matter, and only unofficial.  In general, it was tough to get a Pool C berth with a WP < .700 (and nearly impossible with WP < .667), regardless of how tough the schedule was.  Similarly, it was hard to get a Pool C with an SOS < .510 (and very difficult with SOS < .500).  The exception was UW-O in 2017, with a 17-10 record (.630 WP) and an a crazy SOS of over .600, because of playing a brutal WIAC schedule plus good non-conference opponents.

The early numbers this year make me think that the committee is less attached to arbitrary cutoff values such as a .700 WP or a .510 SOS, but those were never official standards to begin with.

[SaintPaulite]

Amherst wins again.

How close to the worst mistake in regional rankings history must that be?

[SaintPaulite]

(snip)
It will be very interesting to see what the committee does with cases like Amherst and Mount Union, teams with poor schedules but they do have some regionally ranked games and the results have been good, and they got good wins already this week.

OTOH, I think the GL will be interesting too bc it looks to me like Marietta is a classic team whose numbers look better than they actually are.
(snip)
I think they're more in the category with Williams as sort of "good but not that good and not so good that they should be a lock".

This is me quoting me because this is just how ****ing brilliant I am.

If you recall I was on Williams being overrated weeks ago and caught a lot of heat for it.

On. Point (not the cheating kind).

I welcome your neg karmas.