Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

Their SOS is incredibly low.  Even with the conference schedule it's unlikely to get much higher than .500 - to be in the Pool C conversation would require at least one more loss, which would make their candidacy pretty dicey.  Maybe it's an oversight, but more likely they have to win the SUNYAC tournament to have any real chance.

[D3RetiredHooper]

Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

I am assuming Pat, Ryan or Dave can answer this but does the committee take into account players added or subtracted due to injuries/transfers when making their Pool C decisions? I know that can have an impact in the Division 1 process.

Potsdam, Yeshiva, Magnus, UW-River Falls, Whitman, Illinois Wesleyan and Carnegie Melon were all teams that Drew did not have in his 60 teams that I felt could become contenders if they win all of their games and lose in their respective conference championship games (except Carnegie Melon who of course does not have a conference championship game).

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

I am assuming Pat, Ryan or Dave can answer this but does the committee take into account players added or subtracted due to injuries/transfers when making their Pool C decisions? I know that can have an impact in the Division 1 process.

Potsdam, Yeshiva, Magnus, UW-River Falls, Whitman, Illinois Wesleyan and Carnegie Melon were all teams that Drew did not have in his 60 teams that I felt could become contenders if they win all of their games and lose in their respective conference championship games (except Carnegie Melon who of course does not have a conference championship game).

They don't take players into account at all.  There are five primary criteria, all numbers - mostly it's winning percentage, SOS, and record vs regionally ranked opponents.  Potsdam will have Brown for the majority of their schedule, which is good for them, but the weak non-conference will hurt the SOS, and that's far more important.

[KnightSlappy]

Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

Their SOS is incredibly low.  Even with the conference schedule it's unlikely to get much higher than .500 - to be in the Pool C conversation would require at least one more loss, which would make their candidacy pretty dicey.  Maybe it's an oversight, but more likely they have to win the SUNYAC tournament to have any real chance.

I have them projected to be ~ 0.796 winning percentage and 0.503 SOS going into the conference tournament. The WP is good (not great) and the SOS is low. Their RPI (which is not a thing) would be ~34th among Pool C contenders. I don't believe they'll have outstanding Results versus regionally ranked opponents to fall back on, so they're going to need to out-strip this projection by a fair margin or, more likely, count on winning the AQ as Ryan says.

[Gregory Sager]

The nature of community on the Internet definitely shifted toward social media and away from standalone forums such as this one several years back. But we continue.

There is some truth to this, but if you look at Twitter engagement, as an example, I can go through most posts of the 5-10 most prolific handles and see next to no conversation on most Tweets.  There are always a lot of likes and such, but if Twitter is moving people away from d3boards.com, then people are talking far less than they used to.  Maybe they all moved to TikTok?

I think people want more d3boards.com content because why else would so many people be reading the UAA thread when for most of the year, it is just me rambling on about God knows what...

It's because they're all waiting with bated breath for CCIW junior varsity game summaries to start magically appearing on the UAA board.

[KnightSlappy]

There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

Numbers should be current through Sunday.

As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

(Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

[WUPHF]

It's because they're all waiting with bated breath for CCIW junior varsity game summaries to start magically appearing on the UAA board.

The UAA content has picked up with the start of league play, but I am still open to the idea. 

[Pat Coleman]

About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We are just turning into the second half of conference seasons. The SOS numbers are going to change wildly. So will WL numbers.

I know everyone is fascinated, but we won't get a good sense of where teams sit for two more weeks at the very least ... and even when the Regional Rankings first come out, we see dramatic changes by the end of most seasons.

Yeah, I mean half of the things that are said here need a disclaimer.

I think you should do everything you can to encourage more content.

I do not have data, but it seems to me that there has been a continued slide in posting for the past few years.

This is literally what I am trying to say. I am not saying we should discuss it ... I just think there should be a disclaimer. I feel too many people will come through this page (or twitter projections) and think the information is leaning one way when in reality there is a LOT that can change before the first Regional Rankings ... and by the time March 1st comes along.

I had someone ask me how a team's loss in one game the other day was affecting their Pool C changes if needed. Seriously?! The equation changed in their very next game.

Again ... I am not discouraging conversation, but sometimes it seems more like "here is what it will be and here is what we are projecting" without the added part ... "if the tournament was today" or "there is a lot that can change."

I don't even think D1 has gotten into "who is on the bubble" as of yet, but I also try not to focus on that stuff in that division anyway.

[smedindy]

I don't even think D1 has gotten into "who is on the bubble" as of yet, but I also try not to focus on that stuff in that division anyway.

The Athletic started their Bubble Watch at the first of January (Eamonn Brennan writes it), with teams moving in and out as warranted. They always mention teams that drop out due to...issues, as it were. Like Texas. They also reference the Quadrant wins and losses a lot thanks to a wonderful data site by Warren Nolan (and team sheets for over 100 teams), and reference their Ken Pom ratings.  It's why Cincinnati, with a seemingly decent chance (50 NET, 24 SOS (18 Non Conf SOS), 42nd in Ken Pom) has a lot of issues since they're 5-3 in Q3 (4-1 at home) with losses to Colgate, Bowling Green, and Tulane) and no Q1 wins. They could not make the tourney because they couldn't beat Colgate or Tulane.

We KNOW things can change, but one game now DOES make a difference, and I don't think a disclaimer is warranted since things DO change. I really love the data work done here by the stalwarts and think they add a lot to discussions, where one slip up CAN upset a team's applecart going forward (and others as well...)

Losses by the top teams in mediocre conferences, followed by not winning the AQ, can really affect a team's chances. Even if it happens now.

[smedindy]

Example, Wittenberg loses tonight against DePauw. That could cost them a spot if they don't win the AQ thanks to their other factors and other shenanigans happening around. Maybe a two loss Witt gets in despite it all. A three or four loss Witt? That may not be plausible depending on how other things shake out.

It's important to note these things. A bad loss can kill you in conferences that are down or cannibalizing each other.

[smedindy]

There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

Numbers should be current through Sunday.

As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

(Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

What do you think of adding some calculations into it like D1 has with the NET Quadrants that factor in home, road and neutral. (Though their not really quadrants since Q4 has most of the teams that are just cannon fodder). I think that could help clarify the SOS and make it more like a real SOS. So a loss to a meh team and hit you in WL, OWP, OOWP, AND a Quadrant. That could eliminate their multiplier issue as well as the Quadrant takes care of the home / road issue.  And heaven forfend it was at home.

I haven't though it out fully...so discard as you may.

[thebear]

About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.

Thanks Pat, my faith in fair play and humanity hoped this might be the case.

[Pat Coleman]

About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.

Thanks Pat, my faith in fair play and humanity hoped this might be the case.

Sure. But as noted above, all 25 games count in Division III, not just the second semester or the last 10 or whatever subset one might want.

[ronk]

There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

Numbers should be current through Sunday.

As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

(Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

Given that the NCAA hasn't change their calculation to yours in the past 7 years, and, likely that this will continue to be the situation, how should a school schedule in the future to benefit(game) this miscalculation?