Pool C

[augie_superfan]

Smedindy,

I got a question about your power ratings or the ones that you use (Massey, etc.)


Lets just take this little example:

Team A (like a Tufts) is like 21-4 playing teams with fairly good records.  Lets call these type teams, "Team B".  These Team Bs on the other hand, play the horrible teams and therefore have a record of say 19-6.  Do those power rankings take into effect that the "Team B"s that "Team A" is beating have inflated records?


I guess I'm just asking if these power ratings take into account that eventhough some teams might be beating teams with good records, those teams they are beating are not actually that good because they are playing really bad teams (i.e.  bad SOS)?

I thought you would probably know the best but, anyone, feel free to comment.  Thanks.

[Ralph Turner]

Hoops Fan.........Rounds one and two will be held at ONE site.  This opens the doors for more travel. 

Not necessarily?    Couldn't Team A play at Team B in the first round and then travel to Team C that had a bye in round 1?  Or am I not understanding that statement?

I suppose the team with a bye could travel...didn't they do that last year or a couple of years ago with, I think, Mississippi College.  If they won, they'd travel, but if the other team won, that team would host?  It was all confusing! (I think Trinity, TX was in there or one of those Texas teams).

The NCAA has handled the geographic orphans in various ways.  Each of these scenarios include the "bye-home-away" pod.

In 2000, unranked Pomona-Pitzer was flown to Trinity TX  (Week-13 #9).  PP defeated Trinity, 65-62 and then lost to #4 McMurry 111-76. Also  #22 L&C defeated Pacific 77-75, then #7 UW-SP 72 defeated L&C 72-68.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa00.htm

In 2001, Cal Lutheran went to Linfield and lost.  Linfield then lost to L&C.  L&C lost in the "16's" at host Chicago.
Mississippi College defeated Millsaps 61-45, and then lost at McMurry, 86-82.  McMurry lost in the "16's" to WPU at CNU.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/01/pairings.htm

In 2002,  9th seed CMS lost at 8thseed L&C, 81-59.  Taller L&C went to 4th seed MissColl and defeated the Chocs 70-57.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/02/pairings.htm

In 2003, Pool B 11th seed Aurora went to 6th seed Trinity and won 67-66.  Aurora then went to 2nd seed Oxy and lost 80-61.

9th seed Whitworth was sent to GAC (7th seed) and lost 65-55.  GAC lost in the Finals to Willliams.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/03/pairings.htm

In 2004, Pool B 10th seed Colorado College went to 8th seed PP and lost 79-55.  PP then went to #1 seed UPS and lost 89-75.  This was also the year of the UDallas (13-13) to Sul Ross State, Sul Ross State to Trinity TX bracket.  Sul Ross State, Larry, UW-SP all went to UPS for the sectional.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/04/pairings.htm

In 2005, #12 UT-Dallas the ASC Pool A bid bussed to #4 seed Trinity TX and lost 72-66.  #9 seed PP was flown to Trinity and lost 65-53.

#6 BV hosted and defeated #11 Edgewwod 91-74.  BV then went to #1 seed UPS and lost 85-82.

This was also the year that #12 Methodist went to Maryville TN and lost 69-54.  #7 Mississippi College got the bye but had to bus to Maryville  for the second round and won 68-62.  The NCAA bet that Maryville "would hold its serve" and not have to fly Methodist to Clinton, Mississippi.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/05/pairings.htm

These are the only first weekend plane flights that I could find since 2000.  As I remember,  these "seedings" were assigned by D3Hoops.com intelligentsia.

[formerbant10]

Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.

I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.

[smedindy]

Augie -

Everything is interconnected. If team A beats the team Bs like Norwich, they would be hurt in their power rating unless they absolutely eviserated them (and even then there's a diminishing returns set up). But beating teams like MIT with a 95 Massey isn't going to hurt them much.

I think the worst team they played non-conference was Babson, which still had a 111 SOS and a 244 Massey (out of 396) - still higher than a lot of the top teams in the bad bad conferences. So they seem to be insulated from that. By avoiding the Elms and Norwich and Castletons of the world, and even avoiding the teams that play them (first generation) - it helps.

[Ralph Turner]

Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.
I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.

Formerbant, we non-NESCAC fans read that first paragraph and see it for all of its perverse consequences.  Without a Massey MOV or an "opponents' opponent's winning average" you get 14 or 15 points for playing an opponent whose "Massey MOV ranking" is only worth 10-11 in the CCIW, or the WIAC, or the OAC.

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&sub=III&mid=1

Let us look at Tufts' non-conference Northeast victories over teams at .500 or greater.

Team............................Reg. Record............QOWI value............Massey MOV

W N Eng                         14-11                         12                       280
Mass Dartmouth               12-10                         12                       114
Brandeis                         13-10                         12                         63
Plym St (loss)                  16-10                          5                        119
Keene St                         17-6                           15                        67
MIT                                15-7                           14                        95
Wheaton MA                    15-8                           15                       131
W Conn                           12-12                          13                       202
MA Boston                       14-9                            13                       110.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.

I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but, with all due respect, you're out of your freakin' gourd!

The NCAC is NOT a power conference - they have Woo and Witt and 2-3 respectable teams, then a bunch of cupcakes.

But cupcakes in the CCIW or WIAC?

WIAC?  Well, there IS Superior - but otherwise, you sleep on any team,  they WILL put you to sleep but good!

CCIW?  Well there is NPU.  But consider, their ONLY two wins are against Millikin.  So what - Millikin has only three wins.  True, but ALL THREE are against the top four teams.  Wheaton will finish either 5th or 6th, but two weeks ago knocked off both Augustana and IWU.  To paraphrase my favorite movie (except for Casablanca): "Cupcakes? We don't need no stinkin' cupcakes!"  (Apologies to Mel Brooks!)

To suggest that Tufts (or any other NESCAC team, until they institute a double round-robin) has a schedule to match ANY CCIW or WIAC team is just absurd.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Can you even imagine the QOWI that top CCIW teams could run up if they scheduled only the top of the SLIAC, LMC, and NIIC?  I'd predict 13-something.

This is basically the argument that is being made for Tufts.

And this is NOT an attack on Tufts (I've intermittently had them in my top 25); this is an attack on the regional-only nature of QOWI.

(And, yes, I DO realize I'm preaching to the choir!  I'm done.)

[Ralph Turner]

Formerbant, in my previous post, I showed those non-conference in-region wins of teams that Tufts has played this year.

Now let us look at the Massey MOV of the NESCAC.


Amherst               2
Tufts                    23
Bates                   31
Trinity CT             41
Williams               93
Bowdoin              105
Conn                   166
Colby                   197
M'bury                  260
Wesleyan             350.

Please understand the effect of a double round-robin.  Tufts runs the risk of losing in the second round robin to an Amherst, Bates, Trinity CT,  Williams or Bowdoin.  They also have their MOV impacted by another low value win over Conn, Colby, M'bury or Wesleyan.

We have just shown have preverse the NESCAC's schedule policy truly is!

[smedindy]

Actually, Ralph, if they paste the bottom and play the top teams tough, it won't affect the Massey that much.

[John Gleich]

Perhaps we can call the four-team pairings "pods" and the three-team pairings "tripods". 

+1 for that little gem... I was laughing so hard I woke my cat up... and he's one lazy cat, so that's saying something!

[formerbant10]

Well gentlemen, thanks for showing me the numbers in the argument.  Quite convincing on your side.  I tried defending the NESCAC, but it seems like no matter what, it won't work.

Mr. Ypsi, out of my gourd.....very possible, attempting to defend one's conference.....more likely.

I know that without a doubt playing in the WIAC or CCIW is extremely tough.  I think it's a shame that the top 4 teams in each of those conferences will more than likely not make the NCAA tourney.  

Clearly, I do not know enough about the rest of the conferences, but I do know a whole lot about the NESCAC and it's not as much of a cupcake as the rest of the country thinks.  

I think its fair to say that with most leagues, if you sleep on anyone they can put you to sleep.  

But again, thank you for putting the numbers out there for me.  Ralph, if you wouldn't mind comparing the WIAC, CCIW, UAA and NESCAC by their Massey Ratings side by side, I think that would really show how they all stack up.

[smedindy]

To suggest that Tufts (or any other NESCAC team, until they institute a double round-robin) has a schedule to match ANY CCIW or WIAC team is just absurd

Tufts - schedule rating 48
Millikin - schedule rating 38 (pretty close)
Superior - schedule rating 88
Eau Claire - schedule rating 41


I'd say 38 to 48 is within shouting distance over 396 teams, there.

[Ralph Turner]

Smed, I did put those 9 games against the NESCAC opponents and had 6 fewer QOWI points when applying the NESCAC in region records.  Those 6 fewer points will have a multiplier effect, like compunding interest, across all of the teams.

The loss in QOWI points came when a second game against Colby (an 11 point win) was substituted for a game against Wheaton MA (a 13-point win).  In fact, the effect of the second round of NESCAC games would hurt Colby's QOWI value even more.  A second game against Wesleyan (an 8 point win) was substituted for a 12 point win over Western New England.

From the top down, I have tabulated the in-region non-conference records of the NESCAC. Let's assume that the 10 teams have these records in the second round-robin of NESCAC games in descending percentages, 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, etc.  I then intepret the impact of a second round robin on the in-region non-conference games.

Amherst  14-0.........9-0  no change
Trinity       8-2.........8-1  a wash
Bates       10-2........7-2  probably no change
Tufts        13-1........6-3  would be hurt by a second round robin.
Williams   10-4........5-4  would have to find 4 easy wins to break even, might be hurt.
Bowdoin    8-4.........4-5  would be hurt with more losses to stronger NESCAC teams.
Colby         5-7.........3-6  may be weaker than we think.
Conn         9-5.........2-7  would be hurt by harder NESCAC schedule (less value to a NESCAC game with Conn.)
M'bury       10-3.......1-8  really would get killed.  Any game against M'bury is now worth 6 QOWI point less.
Wesleyan   3-6 ........0-9  weaker than we think.

[Ralph Turner]

formerbant, I will encourage someone else to line up those "power" conferences.

I have tried to show how the NESCAC has legally gamed the system.  "Those of us in the choir"  would heartily endorse a #23 Tufts or a #31 Bates on a Massey MOV, if they played a double-round robin and the NCAA adopted a Opponents' opponents winning percentage component in the Primary Criteria.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Ypsi, out of my gourd.....very possible, attempting to defend one's conference.....more likely.

Clearly, I do not know enough about the rest of the conferences, but I do know a whole lot about the NESCAC and it's not as much of a cupcake as the rest of the country thinks. 

I think its fair to say that with most leagues, if you sleep on anyone they can put you to sleep. 

formerbant,

As MANY posters have pointed out at one time or another, I DO have a tendency towards hyperbole! 

I'd have a hard time respecting you if you didn't defend your conference.  But I don't think anyone ever said the NESCAC was a cupcake league.  The accusation was that you beat up on cupcakes.  Everyone I've seen respects the NESCAC, EXCEPT that you refuse to play each other more than a token amount of times, which means you build up impressive looking stats against ... whom?

The problem is, who can tell?  You're among the richest schools in all of d3, but don't often come out of your shell.  (The conspiracy theorist in me says it is because of results like Amherst vs fast-falling Occidental, but I try never to listen to my inner-conspiracy theorist!)  Play the UAA.  Play the NJAC.  Give us a reason to KNOW you're good, rather than just THINK you're good.

And, alas, in many, if not most, leagues you CAN sleepwalk through some games - even in your example, Woo or Witt can safely 'mail it in' against Hiram or Oberlin.