Pool C

[David Collinge]

OS,
Gotcha.

[sac]

The numbers of teams ranked in each region is proportional to the number of teams in the region I believe...I thought I read that in the Handbook

Well the only problem I see is the Great Lakes only gets to rank 6 teams while the pitiful Northeast gets to rank 10....

Augie is right!

The Regional Ranking is established by a ratio.

The Handbook establishes that ratio as #of eligible teams / 6.5.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

In the Northeast,  the NESCAC has 4 ranked teams (Why don't we label that one Whine #1!).

The others are from the AQ conferences: CCC, GNAC, LEC, MASCAC, NEWMAC.  (The NAC doesn't have a ranked member.)

I fully understand the ratio's for ranking regions (to a point I still think its stupid)  One of the criteria is record vs ranked teams.  OBVIOUSLY if you play in a region where 10 teams get to be ranked vs one with only 6 you could have an advantage.   THAT is whats stupid.

......and this isn't even bringing into the argument the relative strength of regions.

[Pat Coleman]

If one out of every seven teams is ranked, then one out of every seven teams is ranked. It's just as fair regardless.

[sac]

Not when one of the criteria is games vs ranked opponents.

You'll never convince me the #7 team from the NE compares with the #7 team from the GL.

Why should a NE team get extra credit for beating the supposed 7th best team in their region  when a GL team doesn't?

So right now if a Pool C bid comes down to Hope and a NE team, Hope's win over Albion means essentially nothing in terms of beating a ranked team because they aren't "ranked", because this region can only have 6 teams.  While a NE team can count wins over a #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams because they can rank 10 teams.

  Thats just crazy Pat.

[Mr. Ypsi]

While I understand the rationale for proportional number of rankings, sac is quite correct that using wins over ranked teams (regardless of how low they are ranked) IS unfair.

Nevertheless, it fits in perfectly with the ' only regional criteria to select a national tournament' insanity.

[hugenerd]

It is crazy this season, but when making NCAA rules you cannot set regulations by anomalies.  The NCAA ranks a team for every 6.5 teams in region because they make the assumption that the quality of any randomly selected hypothetical 6.5 teams is the same throughout all of division 3.  This is the same reason they give one NCAA tourney spot to every 6.5 teams.  I do not think anyone will argue that the GL is strong this year, especially when considering there are only about 40 teams.  However, if next year there are 20 exceptional NE teams you may see that some unranked teams in this region are NCAA tourney caliber teams.  Again, NCAA criteria are not changed year to year based on the assumed strength of a region, they are set according to the number of schools in that region.  It may not be great for the #7 or #8 team in the GL this year but there is no better way to do it where the same criteria can be used every year.

[David Collinge]

Rather than thinking of it as 6 ranked GL teams vs. 10 ranked NE teams, it might help to think of it as the top 15% in each region being ranked.  It also might help to keep in mind that the NCAA prefers to think of D3 as 8 little regions. 

Then again, these things might not help. 

So try to conjure an alternate universe where the power conferences are the LEC, NEWMAC, and SUNYAC, and the only halfway decent conferences in the GL and MW regions are the AMCC and LMC; the others are mostly just dog food.  In that alternate universe, the #10 team in the NE (say, Lasell) is at least as good, if not better, than the #6 team in the GL (say, Pitt-Bradford.)  In other words, the shoe is on the other foot.

The essence of your objection, it seems to me, is not that there are too many ranked teams in the northeast; it's that the northeast generally sucks.  But it may not always be that way, and the fair thing (if you are going to maintain the regional structure) is to allocate the rankings by the number of teams in the region.

It could be worse; they could be allocating the BIDS that way! 

[Pat Coleman]

Not when one of the criteria is games vs ranked opponents.

You'll never convince me the #7 team from the NE compares with the #7 team from the GL.

Why should a NE team get extra credit for beating the supposed 7th best team in their region  when a GL team doesn't?

So right now if a Pool C bid comes down to Hope and a NE team, Hope's win over Albion means essentially nothing in terms of beating a ranked team because they aren't "ranked", because this region can only have 6 teams.  While a NE team can count wins over a #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams because they can rank 10 teams.

  Thats just crazy Pat.

Again, if you are being encouraged to play regional teams, and one of every six teams is ranked, then it makes sense for that to be set out proportionally. In your world, teams in a larger region would have less opportunity to play regionally ranked teams because there are so many fewer.

It's not crazy. You still have to be in the top 16% or so of your region to get ranked.

Sure, regionally ranked teams aren't necessarily great teams in the Northeast, but they aren't guaranteed to be great in the East, Atlantic, and sometimes the South. Why are we singling out the Northeast, exactly? At least the Northeast has won a title lately.

[Ralph Turner]

... At least the Northeast has won a title lately.

Certainly something the South hasn't done since the Ford Adminstration.

[Mr. Ypsi]

hugenerd,

What you say has merit in the abstract (and may be necessary to fit the goals of d3), but ignores reality.  Name me one season where the 6th team in the Northeast, East, or Atlantic has EVER been even close to the the 6th team in the Great Lakes or Midwest.

As I said, the d3 philosophy may require that we PRETEND all regions are created equal, but it just ain't so.

The DEGREE of disparity may be unusual (this year I would bet good money that the 4th place team in the CCIW CONFERENCE alone would beat the 4th place team in the NE, E or A REGIONS by a double-digit margin), but the disparity is a perennial fact of life in d3.

Solution?  You got me!  But if there is going to be a 'national' tournament, please try to understand the misgivings of GL and MW fans who often view it as harder to GET to Salem than to win IN Salem.  Titan Q made a post today that I thought was quite apt: the overall quality of teams in (presumably) Rock Island for the CCIW tourney will very possibly be higher than the overall quality in Salem.

[Ralph Turner]

Good point, Mr Ypsi,

And I reserve my right to quote Titan Q when there are AQ's in Golf and the Quality of the teams at the ASC tourney are better than the quality at every other conference with the possible exception of the SCIAC, SCAC and the USAC!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph,

LOL!

But you've got to make certain allowances for golf - we can't even practice until 3 weeks into the season!  (You ever tried shoveling a golf course?! - and the snowplows REALLY mess up the greens.  )

[Ralph Turner]

I have played in Estes Park, Colorado in early May, just after the elk herds have been shoo'ed off the course.

Winter rules apply.  You can improve your lie, if you want to touch your ball, that is! 

[Pat Coleman]

I hope it's not the same money people bet on IWU running the table.

Your sweeping generalization is interesting. Of course, the sixth team in the Northeast is a 90th percentile team in the region, whereas the sixth team in the Atlantic or East is more like an 80th percentile team in that region. I note with some interest that the No. 6 team in the Northeast in 2004 played Amherst, as did the No. 5 (rankings only went that deep) in the Great Lakes, and both games were competitive.

Last year the last ranked team in the GL was Bethany. I hope we can agree to consider that a season in which the 6th team in the NE was "even close."

That bluster made your standard too easy to meet, Mr. Y. The GL and MW aren't the be-all and end-all of Division III men's basketball, Ypsi. Is the view good from your pedestal?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat,

If you will check the past postings, you will find that the highest I ever set the probability of IWU running the table was 30%.  For the mathematically-impaired, that means I still figured MORE than 2 to 1 odds AGAINST IWU running the table.  PLEASE stop putting words into my mouth - I can embararass myself on my own!

My statement of regional comparisons EVER was probably a bit over the top, but I'm not sure it was by very much.  Since I know much less about GL, I'll stick with the Midwest - can you cite me ANY year where the 6th place team in the NE, E, or A was better than the the 6th place team in the Midwest?  And would you wish to argue that the 4th place team in any of those REGIONS is better than Elmhurst/North Central/Illinois Wesleyan (whoever the 4th place team in the CCIW turns out to be)?

As someone fascinated by the total panoply of d3 bball I'm trying NOT to look down from a pedestal (having enjoyed Fred Young Fieldhouse [where we almost routinely drove the fire marshall nuts with the size of the crowds], I was aghast to learn that at many if not most schools crowds in even the triple digits are a rare occurrence - I am spoiled!   Imagine how bad I'd be if I'd experienced the Shirk!)  Still, so far as I can 'objectively' tell, these look to me like facts about the situation.

Obviously there have been seasons where a superb team (or even two or three) have come out of those regions.  But has there ever been a season where #6 from the Northeast, East or Atlantic has been a serious match for #6 in the Midwest?