Pool C

[David Collinge]

Wooster survives the upset bid by Earlham, winning 84-74 to advance to the NCAC finals against Wittenberg.  Since both Wooster and Wittenberg are Pool C locks, and one will now take a Pool A bid, this essentially saves a pool C bid for someone else.  Like York, or Macon, or Trinity, or Gordon....

Calvin defeats Kalamazoo in the MIAA semis, 66-55, setting up Hope/Calvin III.  Like the NCAC finals, this is a battle of Pool C locks, so another potential two-C conference will take just one C bid (assuming, as I do, that Albion is out.)

[augie_superfan]

The front page says that Baruch is losing 31-21 at the half in their championship game....come on Baruch!!

[augie_superfan]

Down goes Baruch

[David Collinge]

It sounds like Illinois Wesleyan is going to oust Augustana in the CCIW semifinals.  Augie joins the list of teams taking away Pool C berths before the allocating has even begun.  What're we up to now, about 6 or 7 golden locks?

Augie
York (Pa)
Gordon
RMC
Cortland
Baruch
Trinity (TX)
...and I'm probably forgetting some...

Plus the loser of Woo/Witt III, and the loser of Calvin/Hope III.

Then you have Amherst/Bates vs. Tufts/Trinity (CT), and I don't know HOW many C's are in there!

We're accumulating C's as quickly as I did in my second year of college!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just checking scores on the dial-up at home, so m=no major posting, but Baruch and Trinity?  We're down to like 8 bids for the teams that were fighting for 18 two days ago.

[smedindy]

Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

[Ralph Turner]

Trinity's loss to Rhodes was worth only 3 QOWI points.

I calculate that this drops them from 16-2 and 10.833 to 16-3 and 10.421.

[David Collinge]

Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

On the other hand, without the expanded field I wonder if we'd be inking into the bracket names like "Baruch" and "Gordon" at this point.  Instead I think there'd be lamentations about how the best Baruch team in a quarter century missed its golden opportunity, or some such.

Or was that what you meant?

Trinity's loss to Rhodes was worth only 3 QOWI points.

I calculate that this drops them from 16-2 and 10.833 to 16-3 and 10.421.

In other words, that drops them from "in" to "still in." 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

[David Collinge]

Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In both cases, the 6 losses give me a little pause.  If the committee favors QoWI, they're probably both in.  If they favor regional win %, a .714 win percentage with 6 losses is troubling.  Just look at at how many teams in the Northeast or Great Lakes Regions have better regional records than .714.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In both cases, the 6 losses give me a little pause.  If the committee favors QoWI, they're probably both in.  If they favor regional win %, a .714 win percentage with 6 losses is troubling.  Just look at at how many teams in the Northeast or Great Lakes Regions have better regional records than .714.

You are quite correct, David, by the primary criteria.  Which, of course, is what is wrong with the primary criteria.  From that Northeast list, can you find me more than 5-6 teams with any realistic hope of finishing in the top four of the CCIW or WIAC (and those are conferences, not regions).  Or, more to your heart, can you find me more than 2-3 with a realistic chance of finishing in the top 6 of the Great Lakes region?

Sorry to vent on you (I'm pretty sure you are already part of the 'choir'), but these regional criteria to select a national tourney REALLY get to me!  They may fit the d3 philosophy (though I doubt it), but they really violate the COLLEGE philosophy, since they are totally illogical, violate all rules of statistics, and are fundamentally irrational.  Other than that, I got no problem with 'em!

[Ralph Turner]

Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC  Lost to York NY in Finals
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC
3 New Jersey City 16-8 17-9  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in QtrF
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in Semis
NR York NY 15-9 15-13 CUNYAC Pool A    

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8
2 Cortland State 21-3 22-4  SUNYAC  Loss to SUNYIT in Semis
3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5   Leading the UAA

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC  Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC  Lost to Messiah in Semis

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC
2 Augustana 19-4 21-5   CCIW  Lost to IWU in Semis
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC  Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC  Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC  Lost in Semis
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC  Lost to Bridgewater St in Semis
10 Williams 16-8 17-8 NESCAC

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 20-6  SCAC  Loss to #8 seed Rhodes in SCAC QtrF. 3pt QOWI loss
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC  Pool A
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B candidate  Lost to Huntingdon in Semis
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC Lost to UW-W in semis
7 Wartburg 17-5 19-6  IIAC  Lost in IIAC Semis
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A

[sac]

Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

amen to that.


Can I officially take Hope off the bubble, with a 15 point QOWI win tonight and maximum points for a loss tomorrow .......if that should happen.

Albion............4 in-region losses   Calvin, @ Hope, @ Calvin, Hope

something is wrong with this system they should be in.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In the SCAC, Southwestern is still in position to win the AQ, even tho' they lost to Trinity twice.  That sets up the 2 schools in the same conference for the bracket.  If an ASC-West school defeats Miss Coll in the tourney, we have another Pool A bid, and a "third" in Texas.  Add the bye and we have a tripod.

[David Collinge]

You are quite correct, David, by the primary criteria. Which, of course, is what is wrong with the primary criteria. From that Northeast list, can you find me more than 5-6 teams with any realistic hope of finishing in the top four of the CCIW or WIAC (and those are conferences, not regions). Or, more to your heart, can you find me more than 2-3 with a realistic chance of finishing in the top 6 of the Great Lakes region?

Sorry to vent on you (I'm pretty sure you are already part of the 'choir'), but these regional criteria to select a national tourney REALLY get to me! They may fit the d3 philosophy (though I doubt it), but they really violate the COLLEGE philosophy, since they are totally illogical, violate all rules of statistics, and are fundamentally irrational. Other than that, I got no problem with 'em!

I'm not really in the choir.  I look at national championship tournaments as nice, I'm glad we have them, but they're really sort of beside the point.  Therefore I refuse to get worked up when the criteria allow in a team the isn't "deserving" at the expensive of one who is, however I decide to subjectively define "deserving."  The criteria are out there, they're fairly easy to understand, and everyone knows them in advance.  They may not fit anyone's particular method of populating the tournament, but the fact remains that it's up to the NCAA and not us.

Furthermore, I have no way to decide on my own who the best 59 teams are.  I figure, if a team does all that they are supposed to do to earn a bid, then they should earn a bid.

So I refuse to get all wrapped up in who "should" or "shouldn't" be in.  I just try to apply the criteria. 

In candor, I have to admit that my team hasn't been left out lately.  That may color my perceptions.  And I wasn't a player.  That would definitely color my perceptions.