Pool C

[Gregory Sager]

Greg - I would agree the NESCAC needs to play a double round robin. However, Tufts this year is not playing the degraded teams at all. They seem to have avoided the SOS killers like Norwich, et. al.

It still doesn't matter, because you're essentially talking about NESCAC teams playing teams atop a dungheap. Even if you're atop the dungheap, you still smell like the dungheap. 

That's why I did that study of how winning Northeast Region teams had performed against winning teams from other regions. Too much of D3 is a closed system when it comes to rating teams, because of the regional emphasis. The better you can establish the inferiority of a specific region, the more clear it becomes that winning records (or power ratings) based upon the substrate of that inferior competition are necessarily skewed when compared to winning records or power ratings in other regions -- even if that substrate goes down to opponents' opponents, or even opponents' opponents' opponents.

The NESCAC promises the best chance to rise above the dungheap in the Northeast, not only because it so completely dominates the rest of the region in non-conference play but because it actually holds its own in out-of-region games against winning opponents. Teams from across the country generally respect NESCAC teams, for good reason.

But the only true measure of how good NESCAC teams are in that regard is to test their mettle more against the not-so-weak, i.e., cut down significantly on the number of regional non-con games. The only way to do that is to: a) schedule more good out-of-region games, which isn't going to happen for NESCAC teams; and/or b) set up a double round-robin, and the NESCAC doesn't seem much interested in surrendering their advantages by doing so.

Chuck had an interesting and useful analogy:

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.

... but I'd argue it's even more extreme than that. It'd be as though the CCIW's presidents, or ADs, or the CCIW commish, went to the coaches and said, "OK, from now on you're all playing a single round-robin instead of a double. And of the 18 games that you're now allowed to schedule outside of the conference, you are hereby prohibited from playing the following teams: Franklin, Hanover, Transylvania, Wash U, Hope, Calvin, Lawrence, Carroll, and any WIAC team.

"And, no, you can't play the cupcakes, either. Here's your list of approved schools to play: Chicago, Edgewood, Lakeland, Dominican, Concordia WI, Aurora, Benedictine, Rockford, Maryville MO, Blackburn, Webster, Ripon, Grinnell, Knox, Mount St. Joe's, and Bluffton, plus Coach Giovanine can hit up any IIAC school that's within 200 miles. And Coach Trost, Coach Littrell, feel free to substitute Wabash, DePauw, and/or Rose-Hulman at your leisure. Plus, every CCIW team will henceforth schedule Clarke and MSOE, because those poor bastards are indies now and we all know that they need to fill their schedules, too.

"If you get squeezed out of a game or two because those other schools have their non-conference schedules all filled up by your fellow CCIW teams, get yourself some really good out-of-region games or games against tough D2 or NAIA teams. Heck, book a D1 game and make your school some coin. Go ahead ... none of those losses will count, anyway.

"Alright, men, now let's go out and win us some Pool C bids!" 

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.

Yes! As usual, Ralph says in two sentences what I try to say in twenty. 

[smedindy]

ralph -

Again, I am not measuring, nor do I care, about that QOWI. I think people missed MY point.

My entire point, way way way way back there, was that Tufts' schedule, whatever it was, should not be denigrated like the normal NESCAC schedule, and that by the POWER rankings I use, they are a legit C team even if the NCAA were to wake up and get rid of that QOWI.

Of their three losses in conference, one was at home and they avenged it, and two were on the road. They beat Trinity on the road and rather much pole-axed Bates. So perhaps pencil them in for a 14-4 conference record, then?

[formerbant10]

Mr. Ypsi,

Thanks for pointing out that people are indeed not calling the NESCAC a cupcake league.

I'd like to point out that the NESCAC has been playing their single round robin schedule as long as I can remember.  But they didn't even have a conference tourney till 2001. 

And it's tough for the NESCAC not to schedule some weak New England teams, after all there are so many of them out there.

Looking at Trinity's schedule this year, they've beaten Cortland St (on top of their league), Ursinus (on top of their league) and Franklin & Marshall (right behind Ursinus).  None of those were home games either.  Last year Trinity played Occidental and Pomona-Pitzer.  I think they usually try to gauge where they are by playing out of region teams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Tufts is a good squad; they are worthy of getting in.  Trinity is playing well right now and they do traditionally try to play a decent schedule; they might be worthy.  I think Bates is probably not there this year, but they could get in if they can make the conference final.  The big problem will come if Bates and Trinity both make the NESCAC final and Bates wins.  Who know what the NCAA would do with that one.

[Ralph Turner]

ralph -

Again, I am not measuring, nor do I care, about that QOWI. I think people missed MY point.

My entire point, way way way way back there, was that Tufts' schedule, whatever it was, should not be denigrated like the normal NESCAC schedule, and that by the POWER rankings I use, they are a legit C team even if the NCAA were to wake up and get rid of that QOWI.

Of their three losses in conference, one was at home and they avenged it, and two were on the road. They beat Trinity on the road and rather much pole-axed Bates. So perhaps pencil them in for a 14-4 conference record, then?

Thanks, smed!  In the one-dimension nature of this forum, sometimes inflections and nuance are hard to perceive!

Thanks for the correlation of a Bates or a Tufts to Massey MOV and other power rankings like the "Smedindex".

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I am now wondering, with the revelation (that I thought all along) that Nebraska Wesleyan is elligible for Pool B, if maybe one of the GSAC schools could move into Pool C contention.

Lincoln and NebWes now, both seem safe bets for Pool B, leaving two spot.  Bethany (if they do indeed end up with 20 in-region wins) seems like a hard one to ignore.  Fisk and Maryville were both ranked in the South despite their depressing losses last weekend.  If they end up in the GSAC final and the game is close, the winner will probably get the last Pool B bid and the loser still has a pretty good QOWI number.  You might have to figure one of them into the Pool C hunt.

It's not likely, but its something to be remembered.

[Pat Coleman]

NebWes is a safe bet only if they ignore the secondary criteria. We never know if or when they use the secondary criteria.

As for NESCAC and Pool C, man, you guys are assuming a lot in terms of the NESCAC presidents' motivation here. Don't forget, folks, the NESCAC has had this schedule since LOOOOOONG before QOWI and the uber-emphasis on regionality came into play.

[hopefan]

Was looking thru all the teams that lost yesterday - looks like best regional record of a loser was PSU Behrend at 19-7, 15-6.  Do they have any kind of a shot???

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Was looking thru all the teams that lost yesterday - looks like best regional record of a loser was PSU Behrend at 19-7, 15-6.  Do they have any kind of a shot???

No, none at all.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The Division 2 rankings are up; I expect ours very soon.

[diehardfan]

ours are up

http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii

looks good for the NCAC and the MIAA, not as bad for Oxy as I was expecting (though they'll probably fall after the PP loss is counted) and the midwest ratings look exactly how I would have ddone it... interesting stuff

[Pat Coleman]

Men's regional rankings posted
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=140

Last week the NCAA e-mailed them to me at the same time the web site got them. This week I guess they forgot.

[walzy31]

Thanks Pat and diehardfan,

I had a question. Why is the Northeast region list 10 teams deep and the other regions list no more than 8 teams (with some only listing 5 or 6 teams)?

Also, a little irrelavent banter...St. John Fisher is 22-3 and last year in the Sweet 16 was the worst undefeated team (26-0 I think) I've seen in D3. I hope they get shipped up to Amherst for the sectionals again.

[Knightstalker]

The number of ranked teams is based on the number of teams in the region.  The NCAA uses the same ratio regionally that they do nationally to determine the number of teams in the tournament..

[sac]

Men's regional rankings posted
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=140

Last week the NCAA e-mailed them to me at the same time the web site got them. This week I guess they forgot.

I don't get the regional rankings from that link