Pool C

[nescac1]

I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.

[deiscanton]

I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.

Rochester certainly did well enough in the non-conference season to merit going into the NCAA DIII field if selected--

We will see how many of these teams remain RROs this week, but so far, Rochester went 5-0 vs non-UAA RROs this season:

Wins over Nazareth, Ithaca, Wooster, Middlebury, and UT-Dallas.

In the UAA, Rochester has wins over CWRU (the UAA AQ), 2 wins vs Carnegie Mellon (although UR may not be able to count those as wins vs an RRO when the new regional rankings come out today), and NYU (road win in Brooklyn).

Rochester has RRO losses in the UAA vs Emory, 2 losses vs Wash U, 1 loss vs CWRU, and 1 loss vs NYU.

Emory is a little bit harder to justify getting a Pool C bid now, but the Eagles would finish a win/loss pct above .667 with a win on Saturday, due to their sweeping of Rochester.  That, plus an SOS above .600, is at least enough to remain in the Pool C conversation.  The Eagles would also get a 4th win vs a RRO with a win on Saturday.

If Emory loses on Saturday, I don't think Emory should get a Pool C.  9 losses is too many for Emory to take, and a win/loss pct for Emory at .640 would be too low for that team, even with an SOS above .600, given that Emory went 0-1 so far vs non-UAA RROs this season.

Emory is 0-1 vs non-UAA RROs so far-- A loss vs Guilford.

In the UAA, Emory has RRO wins over CWRU (the UAA AQ), Rochester, and NYU. 

Emory has RRO losses vs Wash U (2 losses), Carnegie Mellon (2 losses), CWRU, and NYU.

[Greek Tragedy]

I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.

I'm not sure I completely agree with the "what have you done lately" theory. So a team that starts 0-8 and finishes 17-0 should be considered over a team that starts 17-0 and finishes 0-8? Injuries, sickness, scheduling could all factor into performance. Non-conference and conference scheduling could factor in as well.

[nescac1]

I think it depends on how you define "merit."  By the NCAA's criteria, which is all that matters on selection Sunday, Rochester has (with one more win) clearly done enough to merit a selection.  But will there be teams who are playing better now, and have been playing much better over the course of the last month, that will be left out in favor of Rochester?  Certainly.  Rochester is 4-6 in its last 10 games, with four losses by 14 points or more.  They lost by 16 to UAA last place team UChicago and barely beat UChicago in overtime.  They only have one win by more than four points since January 15.  in sum, for over a month now, they've lost a majority of games, the games they have lost they have tended to lose by a lot, and the games they have won have been generally very close.  Sure, they are in a great league, but it's not the only great league out there.  They just haven't been playing at a tournament-caliber level since the first half of January. 

Is any of this relevant to the NCAA criteria?  Not even one iota - so by the standards of the selection committee, Rochester will be a "deserving" team if they are selected.  Heck, like any Pool C selection, they could even win a game or two in the tourney.
But there is going to be some team that suffered an early hiccup or two way back in in November who has been crushing it for nearly all of the last two months who is going to be left out, and it's a bummer that the criteria doesn't account for improvement over the course of a season in any way at all, in the event that a red-hot team suffers one late stumble in a conference tournament.  (Not saying it's an easy fix!). 

And Greek Tragedy, reasonable minds can differ.  I do think that a team that starts 17-0 and 0-8 should be considered behind a team with a roughly comparable resume than a team that wins its last 17 games.  That's part of the reason league tourneys matter so disproportionately, right, to account for teams that have emerged late in the year!  If other things are roughly equal, I think a tournament selecting the best teams in the country should try to include the teams that are playing the best brand of basketball at the time of the tournament - who have shown improvement over the course of the season and are playing their best hoops in February as opposed to November.  I'd rather coaches have the flexibility to experiment early in the season and have an early loss or two not completely doom them late in the year when maybe the team has made it all come together. 

[thebear]

I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

[deiscanton]

I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

I would go with the head to head winner in this case, assuming both the win/loss pct and the SOS difference is really very small to not be of significance.

[KnightSlappy]

I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

Yes, head to head is in the primary criteria, so they will certainly consider that. 2-0 will carry more weight than 1-0, but they will use H2H to overcome gaps in the other criteria. Exactly how much of a gap is difficult to say.

[blue_jays]

I think it depends on how you define "merit."  By the NCAA's criteria, which is all that matters on selection Sunday, Rochester has (with one more win) clearly done enough to merit a selection.  But will there be teams who are playing better now, and have been playing much better over the course of the last month, that will be left out in favor of Rochester?  Certainly.  Rochester is 4-6 in its last 10 games, with four losses by 14 points or more.  They lost by 16 to UAA last place team UChicago and barely beat UChicago in overtime.  They only have one win by more than four points since January 15.  in sum, for over a month now, they've lost a majority of games, the games they have lost they have tended to lose by a lot, and the games they have won have been generally very close.  Sure, they are in a great league, but it's not the only great league out there.  They just haven't been playing at a tournament-caliber level since the first half of January. 

Is any of this relevant to the NCAA criteria?  Not even one iota - so by the standards of the selection committee, Rochester will be a "deserving" team if they are selected.  Heck, like any Pool C selection, they could even win a game or two in the tourney.
But there is going to be some team that suffered an early hiccup or two way back in in November who has been crushing it for nearly all of the last two months who is going to be left out, and it's a bummer that the criteria doesn't account for improvement over the course of a season in any way at all, in the event that a red-hot team suffers one late stumble in a conference tournament.  (Not saying it's an easy fix!). 

And Greek Tragedy, reasonable minds can differ.  I do think that a team that starts 17-0 and 0-8 should be considered behind a team with a roughly comparable resume than a team that wins its last 17 games.  That's part of the reason league tourneys matter so disproportionately, right, to account for teams that have emerged late in the year!  If other things are roughly equal, I think a tournament selecting the best teams in the country should try to include the teams that are playing the best brand of basketball at the time of the tournament - who have shown improvement over the course of the season and are playing their best hoops in February as opposed to November.  I'd rather coaches have the flexibility to experiment early in the season and have an early loss or two not completely doom them late in the year when maybe the team has made it all come together.

Agreed on all points. Obviously what you've done lately doesn't play into selection criteria. But if Rochester came to the table and there's an equally deserving team they're up against for the last selection, I'm taking the other team. That doesn't mean Rochester wouldn't win a game or two in the NCAAs, basketball is a game of matchups after all. But they've fallen on their face so hard for the last month, I wouldn't select them. You gotta win games, and that's something they haven't been doing, regardless of their RROs and SOS.

[Greek Tragedy]

https://d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2023/men-regional-rankings-second

[kiko]

I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

Real tangible comparable data >>>>> a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet that were potentially drawn from two barely overlapping datasets.

(And I like the current system in that it makes the selections as quantitative as possible when there may be limited overlap, versus a process that instead might gravitate toward prominent names that may not have done as much as schools that are less well known.  But when you do have directly comparable data, you should lean hard into it.)

[sac]

I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

Real tangible comparable data >>>>> a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet that were potentially drawn from two barely overlapping datasets.

(And I like the current system in that it makes the selections as quantitative as possible when there may be limited overlap, versus a process that instead might gravitate toward prominent names that may not have done as much as schools that are less well known.  But when you do have directly comparable data, you should lean hard into it.)

We're currently saying 14-11 is worth more than 22-3 though.

[Ralph Turner]

So the 5th best team in the CCIW better than anyone in the HCAC, SLIAC & NACC?

If so, that is a very weak region.

[Gregory Sager]

So the 5th best team in the CCIW better than anyone in the HCAC, SLIAC & NACC?

Arguably, yes.

If so, that is a very weak region.

It's hard to find a happy medium. In the recent past the CCIW was in a region that also included the WIAC. That was a very strong region ... much too strong, in fact.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The HCAC has been particularly down this year.  They usually have a team or two that's more competitive.

[deiscanton]

The HCAC has been particularly down this year.  They usually have a team or two that's more competitive.

I thought at the beginning of the season that Hanover could give NYU a game, but NYU took the Panthers down with relative ease in the Cregger Invitational, and Hanover has been, IMO, somewhat of a disappointment this season.