Pool C

[Pat Coleman]

Our "committee" (and it wasn't just me, it was a three-person discussion) felt Wash U's superior QOW and record against regionally ranked teams outweighed Utica's advantage in regional winning percentage.

If Utica had beaten SJF in any of their three meetings it would have likely made the difference.

[Greek Tragedy]

No problem with the teams, and reasons you have included them there, but I question the pairings. Carroll owns a 10 point win over Whitewater this year and I doubt they would be the lowest seed of those 4.

Actually, it wasn't really meant to be pairings! 

If I were to seed them, I'd probably have Whitewater #1 (since they won both the reg. season and conference tourney), then Carroll #2, Carleton #3 and WLC #4.

[titanfan]

Mississippi College beats Howard Payne 74-58.  That's good news for all that are fighting for a Pool C, since MC was a lock for one of those if they lost.

[Gregory Sager]

My differences with Pat Coleman were Utica NY in and Wash StL out.

Aside from some slight changes in the 1-to-18 order, I have two differences with Pat and his two cohorts (one of whom I take it is Gordon Mann): They have UW-LaCrosse and Randolph-Macon in, and I have Lakeland and Bates instead.

I was really reluctant to put in Lakeland, especially since they graded out 16th on my list (which seems excessively high for a team from a weak conference that got upset in the first round of their conference tourney), but the one thing that seemed to be holding them back in comparison to UW-LaCrosse -- their loss to the Eagles back in November -- doesn't fall under the five primary criteria, since it wasn't a regional game. Since Lakeland grades out better than UWL in every category, that game only becomes relevant if the committee moves to secondary criteria while both teams are simultaneously on the table. I'm just not sure that that's going to happen -- although I post this with the strong caveat that over the years I have proved that I am no better at figuring out how the committee thinks than anyone else. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The committee has looked pretty poorly on losing your first playoff game.  With the head-to-head there (I think as secondary criteria), they have to be out.

I personally think Randolph-Macon should be in before Bates, but its debatable with the way the NESCAC teams seem to be inflated.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg,

I also posted this in response to your similar post on CCIW Chat - I share your doubts about LAX (I have Bates instead), but Pat's team only had them 18th anyway.  They had RMC as the 12th pick (and I also think they are in, whether or not 12th) - I'm wondering what deficiency you see in RMC's credentials that you would have them THAT much lower?

[Pat Coleman]

Here's what we have for finals:

1-10
Amherst     12.160     24-1
Lawrence    11.682    22-0
Worcester Polytech    11.250    20-3
Mississippi College    11.154    25-1
Tufts    11.000    20-5
St. John Fisher    11.000    22-1
Lincoln    10.688    12-4
Wittenberg    10.652    20-3
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.550    16-4

11-20
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
Augustana    10.478    19-4
Cortland State    10.440    22-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Transylvania    10.370    23-4
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3
UW-Whitewater    10.304    18-5
William Paterson    10.240    19-6
Hope    10.211    17-2
North Central    10.095    16-5
               
21-30
Bates    10.091    16-6
Carroll    10.087    19-4
Ursinus    10.080    20-5
Baldwin-Wallace    10.077    22-4
Washington U.    10.050    14-6
Wooster    10.042    21-3
Carleton    10.000    18-5
St. Thomas    9.960    20-5
Baruch    9.958    21-3
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
               
31-40
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6
Puget Sound    9.944    16-2
Widener    9.920    20-5
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.875    19-5
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Keene State    9.800    18-7
Fisk    9.800    10-5
               
41-50
Trinity (Conn.)    9.750    15-5
Occidental    9.750    12-4
Calvin    9.733    13-2
Utica    9.692    20-6
MIT    9.680    17-7
Messiah    9.583    17-7
Whitworth    9.542    18-6
Catholic    9.542    19-5
Endicott    9.520    16-8
Lake Erie    9.500    18-4
               
51-60
New York University    9.500    17-7
Williams    9.458    16-8
New Jersey    9.455    14-8
Bowdoin    9.429    13-8
Hamilton    9.409    18-4
Albright    9.409    14-8
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.400    15-5
Howard Payne    9.385    19-7
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.364    15-7
Scranton    9.360    19-6
               
61-70
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.360    18-7
Colby-Sawyer    9.360    16-8
Pomona-Pitzer    9.353    13-4
Johns Hopkins    9.348    16-7
Bethany    9.333    20-4
Rochester    9.333    13-8
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    7-2
Rhode Island College    9.308    17-9
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.292    15-9
UW-Stevens Point    9.292    15-9
               
71-80
Wartburg    9.273    17-5
Centre    9.261    15-8
Elms    9.250    20-4
Salem State    9.240    18-7
Manhattanville    9.231    17-9
Richard Stockton    9.208    15-9
Emmanuel    9.200    19-6
Willamette    9.200    16-4
Chicago    9.200    12-8
Westfield State    9.167    16-8
               
81-90
New Jersey City    9.167    16-8
Norwich    9.160    20-5
Villa Julie    9.143    17-4
UW-Oshkosh    9.136    13-9
Ohio Northern    9.130    17-6
McMurry    9.125    17-7
Albion    9.125    12-4
Franklin    9.120    18-7
Mass-Boston    9.120    16-9
Mount St. Mary    9.083    18-6
               
91-100
Christopher Newport    9.067    11-4
Hanover    9.048    13-8
Elmhurst    9.045    14-8
Plattsburgh State    9.040    16-9
Rutgers-Newark    9.000    17-9
Plymouth State    8.962    16-10
Chapman    8.929    10-4
Oswego State    8.920    18-7
Ohio Wesleyan    8.917    17-7
Elizabethtown    8.913    13-10

[Gregory Sager]

The committee has looked pretty poorly on losing your first playoff game. 

They shouldn't. It's not a stated criterion.

With the head-to-head there (I think as secondary criteria), they have to be out.

... except that Lakeland grades better than UWL in three of the five primary criteria, a fourth isn't applicable, and the fifth is a matter of interpretation ... and if it's interpreted fairly and in keeping with the manner in which D3 seems to go out of its way to avoid showing favoritism to power conferences, it'll swing Lakeland's way as well.

In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

Greg,

I also posted this in response to your similar post on CCIW Chat - I share your doubts about LAX (I have Bates instead), but Pat's team only had them 18th anyway.  They had RMC as the 12th pick (and I also think they are in, whether or not 12th) - I'm wondering what deficiency you see in RMC's credentials that you would have them THAT much lower?

As I said on CCIW Chat, RMC is borderline in the two "popular" criteria; they don't seem to have any advantages over any other contenders in two others; and in the fifth, in-region record vs. regionally-ranked teams, they're absolutely atrocious, thanks to their 0-3 mark against Virginia Wesleyan. I think that the Jackets are borderline at best, and I'm not really sure how Pat and his crew got them in as high as twelfth.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

OK, I think most everyone is agreed on:

Tufts
Gordon
Augustana
Carroll
Wooster
Baruch
Cortland
Calvin
Widener
York (PA)
Trinity (TX)
Stout

That leaves six bids left.  My idea of the candidates: Utica, Trinity (CT), Bates, Lakeland, WashU, LaCrosse, Carleton, Randolph-Macon and IWU.

Two of those teams have to get left out.

For me, Utica's 20 wins is too much to keep them out, especially since they may be right behind Cortland in terms of elligible teams in the East Rankings.

I also see IWU, Trinity (CT), Carelton and Randolph-Macon getting in.

That leaves Bates/WashU/LaCrosse out there.  I think Bates gets in next (better QOWI, better in-region winning percentage), then WashU.  Lakeland never gets to the table.

[Gregory Sager]

Lakeland never gets to the table.

That's the key -- "getting to the table." A D3 bracketologist can't just chart the five primaries as best as he's able and then start slotting the C's one thru eighteen. You have to play out in your mind in what order they would go in the metaphorical smoke-filled room on a region-by-region basis, because that's how the committee judges them -- one team per region at a time.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Lakeland never gets to the table.

That's the key -- "getting to the table." A D3 bracketologist can't just chart the five primaries as best as he's able and then start slotting the C's one thru eighteen. You have to play out in your mind in what order they would go in the metaphorical smoke-filled room on a region-by-region basis, because that's how the committee judges them -- one team per region at a time.

Made even harder, of course, since we peons never get to see the only regional rankings that count!

[Pat Coleman]

In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

I said this on the blog (where I also dispute your assessment of UWL's record vs. RR opponents, Greg), but I'll say it here, too: I think it's actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.

[Ralph Turner]

Trying to figure out a fundraiser for D3Hoops.com...

How about Pay-per-view for the "Bracketologists" show...

Live from Goucher College!

With Cameos from Coach Trost and Gregory Sager, if he is awake!

We could have Diehardfan do the "Vanna White" thing...

"And now April, is there an Amherst?"

Jared Rosenbaum could report from his favorite billiards parlor...

Dave McHugh could have a televised rant!

I think that it makes lots of sense.

[Pat Coleman]

One other thing and then I get back to editing USAT. Remember the criterion says " • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (teams ranked at time of selection only)."

This doesn't say "winning percentage" or "wins" -- it says results. Merely playing a RR team could be considered a result.

[Ralph Turner]

In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

I said this on the blog (where I also dispute your assessment of UWL's record vs. RR opponents, Greg), but I'll say it here, too: I think it's actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.

If Huntingdon makes it, the committee almost certainly looked at secondary criteria, because I don't think that their W-L and QOWI are 4th best.

However, if there ever was a qualified case for secondary criteria, Huntingdon has made it...13 game win streak, winning 16 of 18, winning a regular season co-championship, winning 4 straight over opponents which were regionally ranked in the weeks they played them and including winning the conference tourney.