Pool C

[Gregory Sager]

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.

I see and understand the point that you and Chuck are raising about the injustices of proportional ranking slots, Scott, but remember that this is a blade that cuts both ways. Your #2 Dutch split with Albion, and when you're using the regionally-ranked-opponents criterion a split is not necessarily a good thing. The team that's more likely to be upset about Albion being denied a ranking slot because of the paucity of available slots in the Great Lakes rankings is Calvin, because the #6 Knights can conceivably sweep Albion this season.

(And #4 Baldwin-Wallace is presumably pleased as punch that there's only six slots available in the Great Lakes regional rankings, since Bald Wally lost to Albion in November.)

It is crazy this season, but when making NCAA rules you cannot set regulations by anomalies.

It's not an anomaly that the Great Lakes is so dominant this season and the Northeast is so weak. There's a reason why David postulated his reverse situation with the words "alternate universe"; historically, the Great Lakes and Midwest regions have always been very strong, dating back to the beginning of D3 three decades ago. The Northeast has been able to tread water nationally only because of the infusion of the NESCAC a little over a decade ago (and they still only have one national title as a region, the one won by Williams three years ago), and the East has declined sharply in terms of tournament performance since Jerry Welsh turned in his clipboard and whistle at Potsdam State a decade and a half ago. And the South, as Ralph noted to his chagrin, hasn't won a national title since the very first one back in '75, which was won by a school (LeMoyne-Owen) that isn't even in D3 anymore.

Nevertheless, as you and David and Pat have all pointed out, this system is as equitable as a system can be under the ridiculous regional-games-determine-national-tourney-berths concept employed by D3. Unless someone can figure out a mathematical formula by which regions are compared with each other, the proportional system is the only fair way to do it. (And even if someone was ever able to construct such a region-by-region comparison formula, you could count on the D3 Convention not to adopt it.)

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Especially with 18 bids this year, I think Pool C can be pretty effectively distributed.  Yes, there are teams not in the ranking better than teams ranked in other regions, but there is no reason to think one of the truly deserving schools (Albion is really the only one in this category, and they won't be if they keep losing) gets left out.  Once you get past a certain level, there is no shoe-in candidates.  It's all about comparison.

For the record, I would say #4-#7 in the NE are all about even and certainly comparable to Lakeland.  Also, if you think than any team finishing #7-#10 in the NE has any chance of making it as an at-large bid, then you are nuts.  It just doesn't happen that way.

[Knightstalker]

The one thing I wonder about when it comes time to make the selections is this.  Up until last season when the regional rankings were released the NCAA used to have teams in each region listed as honorable mention.  I figured these were the Others Receiving Votes in the region.  When looking at the ranked teams I wonder if they have the ORV teams also on their lists so that as teams are selected they move up.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

When they get to the final, secret rankings, they have to have longer lists (as evidenced by the mock selection earlier).  The Great Lakes region could be empty real fast if they just have 6 teams ranked (and half of them get AQs).  It's just a shame we never get to see this list.  I wonder exactly how many they do rank for each region when it comes down to it.

[Knightstalker]

As for the argument that the ME or GL number six is better than the East or Atl number six, that really can't be challenged.  There are only five teams ranked in the Atlantic and East regions.

Does anyone really think the number six MW team right now is better than the number six NE team?  If anything I would call that a toss-up that leans towards the NE.  GL number six I will say is better than NE number six right now, but I don't think by as much as many think.

[Knightstalker]

The last thing I wonder about is how honest are the regional rankings.  I will use the Atlantic as my example as they are the region I am most familiar with.

1. Bernard Baruch 18-1 20-3
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6
3. The College of New Jersey 12-5 14-5
4. Farmingdale 12-4 15-4
5. Mount St. Mary (New York) 15-4 18-4

What I wonder is this.  Is there an unwritten rule that every conference needs to be reflected in the regional rankings?  I think most honest observers would agree that the top three spots are well deserved.  The bottom two spots could and most likely should be NJAC teams if the rankings were true.  Even though Farmingdale and MSM both have better regional records NJCU, Stockton, RU-Newark and even Ramapo are better and stronger teams and should be ranked before those two teams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It's done by the numbers knightstalker, but I do think they break ties by representing conferences near the bottom.  It's the only explanation for Salem State, Norwich and Keene as the bottom three in New England.  (Although they never had qualms about leaving the CCC out entirely until recent years).

[Knightstalker]

That is exactly what I am talking about.  There were years previously when either a Skyline or CUNY team wasn't even ranked in the region and you would see several NJAC teams ahead of CUNY and Skyline who had better records.

[Pat Coleman]

Some regions try to get everyone represented, others don't. And it changes from year to year, as the committee members change.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Some regions try to get everyone represented, others don't. And it changes from year to year, as the committee members change.

The men's and women's committees are different too, right?

The pattern of the women's rankings in NE are drastically different than the pattern in the men's.  I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll ask here.

[Pat Coleman]

Yep, they're different people.

[Pat Coleman]

Updated QOWI through Thursday, Feb. 9. Now includes regional records:

1-10
Amherst     11.800     19-1
Lawrence    11.556    18-0
Worcester Polytech    11.300    18-2
Occidental    11.273    10-1
Augustana    11.211    18-1
Fisk    11.182    9-2
Carnegie Mellon    11.000    13-2
St. John Fisher    11.000    16-1
Cortland State    10.947    18-1
Trinity (Texas)    10.929    12-2
               
11-20
York (Pa.)    10.900    18-2
Mississippi College    10.789    18-1
Wittenberg    10.765    15-2
Tufts    10.750    17-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.688    13-3
Transylvania    10.619    18-3
Bates    10.611    15-3
Wooster    10.556    17-1
Gordon    10.526    17-2
Virginia Wesleyan    10.500    19-3
               
21-30
Hope    10.500    12-2
Lincoln    10.438    12-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.400    18-2
Baruch    10.350    19-1
UW-La Crosse    10.227    17-5
Carleton    10.222    14-4
St. Thomas    10.190    16-5
Carroll    10.111    16-2
Calvin    10.111    8-1
William Paterson    10.100    15-5

31-40
UW-Stout    10.056    15-3
New York University    10.053    16-3
Williams    10.050    15-5
Howard Payne    10.000    15-4
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    13-3
Randolph-Macon    9.950    15-5
Keene State    9.947    13-6
Johns Hopkins    9.944    15-3
Puget Sound    9.923    12-1
Washington U.    9.857    9-5

41-50
Wartburg    9.842    16-3
North Central    9.813    12-4
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.778    13-5
Ursinus    9.750    16-4
Albion    9.727    9-2
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.722    14-4
UW-Whitewater    9.706    12-5
Lake Erie    9.706    14-3
Widener    9.700    17-3
Catholic    9.667    13-5
               
51-60
Plymouth State    9.636    14-8
Endicott    9.611    12-6
New Jersey    9.611    13-5
Alvernia    9.600    17-3
Willamette    9.600    13-2
Hanover    9.588    11-6
Brockport State    9.563    11-5
Westfield State    9.550    13-7
Rhode Island College    9.524    14-7
Lakeland    9.474    15-4
               
61-70
Whitworth    9.444    13-5
Rochester    9.438    11-5
Coe    9.438    12-4
Southwestern    9.438    12-4
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.400    13-7
Mass-Boston    9.368    12-7
Richard Stockton    9.350    13-7
Christopher Newport    9.333    7-2
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    5-1
Messiah    9.316    14-5
               
71-80
MIT    9.316    12-7
Hamilton    9.313    13-3
UW-Oshkosh    9.278    11-7
Wilmington    9.273    16-6
Bethany    9.250    16-4
Elmhurst    9.167    12-6
Norwich    9.158    15-4
Muskingum    9.158    13-6
Oswego State    9.158    14-5
Franklin    9.158    14-5
               
81-90
Gustavus Adolphus    9.158    13-6
Salem State    9.150    14-6
Averett    9.125    12-4
McMurry    9.105    14-5
Emmanuel    9.100    15-5
Albright    9.056    11-7
Plattsburgh State    9.056    11-7
UW-Stevens Point    9.053    12-7
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.050    14-6
New Jersey City    9.000    13-7
               
91-100
Milwaukee Engineering    9.000    14-5
Ohio Northern    9.000    12-5
Rutgers-Newark    8.952    15-6
Utica    8.947    14-5
Mount St. Mary    8.947    14-5
Elms    8.944    14-4
Villa Julie    8.882    13-4
Baptist Bible    8.867    12-3
Brandeis    8.850    12-8
St. John's    8.833    12-6

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Twenty of the top 100 are now from the NE region.  The NESCAC has three in the top 17, five in the top 35.  I can say there is definately a huge divide between the good teams and the bad teams in the NE.

[sac]

Guys the argument isn't really about the relative strengths of Regions.

Its about the criteria using games vs ranked opponents which will ultimately be used to select a team over another team.  One Region has a distinct advantage by haveing TWICE as many potential ranked teams as other regions.

That is just not right.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

If that's the case, then this whole discussion is moot.  Most of the primary criteria is used to determine between teams within regions (in-region head-to-head, in-region common opponents, etc).  One they get to selection, the secondary criteria is thrown is as well (even though in-region wins vs ranked opponents is technically listed in primary criteria).  It might be used in the comparison, but its not used as the benchmark for picking one team over another.  Maybe it should be less of a factor, but its not worth this whole huge discussion.