Pool C

[sac]

Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...

Sometimes posters forget to look at the losses as well as the wins.      Oh well.  I should be in Aurora to see the mighty MIAA, even though they both got smoked by two CCIW teams that aren't in the tourney (Carthage and Wheaton, IL) 

losing by 7 and 3, and leading with 5 min to go  is getting smoked?  Only one team got smoked that weekend.

[Pat Coleman]

Well, the thing is that if you divide the NCAA up into four regions, they are going to encompass more than 100 schools each, and in some places you're going to require a lot of real estate to find 100 schools.

Is it logical that a game 2,000 miles away is in region and others are not? No, not really. But is it better than what we had before, where (outside of Conn. and Mass.) in-region was maybe 80 or so schools? Absolutely. The people attacking this lose sight of that. It gives teams more options for opponents that will count. And frankly, the attacks on it are tiresome and annoying. Why can't people just take the improvement that was given?

This was an enhancement that the NCAA leadership offered when Division III members asked for it. I understand that it's not good enough for you, but it is better. Please accept it for that.

[sac]

Using the RPI ratings from the front page, here's how are Pool C fight might have looked.  (AQ's are in bold; Pool B in italics.)

Rank Team Region Win%  Opp. Win% Opp. Opp. Win% RPI Region
1 Amherst 0.923 (24-2) 0.574 0.548 0.655 Northeast
2 UW-Stevens Point 0.960 (24-1) 0.552 0.537 0.650 West
3 Trinity (Conn.) 0.810 (17-4) 0.591 0.543 0.634 Northeast
4 Washington U. 0.818 (18-4) 0.561 0.548 0.622 Midwest
5 Brandeis 0.760 (19-6) 0.587 0.552 0.621 Northeast
6 Augustana 0.846 (22-4) 0.541 0.557 0.621 Midwest
7 Chicago 0.792 (19-5) 0.568 0.552 0.620 Midwest
8 Rhode Island College 0.889 (24-3) 0.524 0.540 0.619 Northeast
9 Rochester 0.750 (18-6) 0.586 0.549 0.618 East
10 WPI 0.870 (20-3) 0.521 0.541 0.613 Northeast
11 Ramapo 0.800 (20-5) 0.562 0.525 0.612 Atlantic
12 Salem State 0.923 (24-2) 0.503 0.512 0.610 Northeast
13 St. Thomas 0.889 (24-3) 0.516 0.507 0.607 West
14 Brockport State 0.815 (22-5) 0.532 0.519 0.600 East
15 UW-La Crosse 0.708 (17-7) 0.578 0.537 0.600 West
16 Mississippi College 0.958 (23-1) 0.470 0.500 0.599 South
17 Catholic 0.808 (21-5) 0.527 0.530 0.598 Middle Atl
18 St. John Fisher 0.808 (21-5) 0.529 0.519 0.596 East
19 UW-Oshkosh 0.750 (18-6) 0.548 0.538 0.596 West
20 Bates 0.708 (17-7) 0.575 0.523 0.595 Northeast
21 Centre 0.810 (17-4) 0.528 0.515 0.595 South
22 Tufts 0.600 (15-10) 0.612 0.552 0.594 Northeast
23 Elmhurst 0.739 (17-6) 0.539 0.560 0.594 Midwest
24 Loras 0.826 (19-4) 0.517 0.516 0.594 West
25 St. Lawrence 0.808 (21-5) 0.522 0.520 0.593 East
26 Keene State 0.800 (20-5) 0.515 0.540 0.593 Northeast
27 St. John's 0.833 (20-4) 0.508 0.507 0.589 West
28 Lincoln 0.786 (11-3) 0.523 0.521 0.588 Middle Atl
29 New York University 0.750 (18-6) 0.527 0.543 0.587 East
30 Messiah 0.800 (16-4) 0.510 0.528 0.587 Middle Atl
31 North Central 0.579 (11-8) 0.612 0.544 0.587 Midwest
32 Wooster 0.909 (20-2) 0.468 0.500 0.586 Great Lakes
33 Lake Erie 0.955 (21-1) 0.458 0.474 0.586 Great Lakes
34 Babson 0.600 (15-10) 0.601 0.538 0.585 Northeast
**************************************************
35 New Jersey City 0.680 (17-8) 0.562 0.535 0.585 Atlantic
36 Virginia Wesleyan 0.846 (22-4) 0.500 0.494 0.585 South
37 Wheaton (Ill.) 0.619 (13-8) 0.590 0.541 0.585 Midwest
38 Occidental 0.824 (14-3) 0.510 0.498 0.585 West
39 Williams 0.600 (15-10) 0.593 0.548 0.584 Northeast
40 Hood 0.769 (20-6) 0.520 0.526 0.584 Middle Atl
41 John Carroll 0.720 (18-7) 0.547 0.522 0.584 Great Lakes
42 Plattsburgh State 0.739 (17-6) 0.536 0.521 0.583 East
43 King's 0.731 (19-7) 0.535 0.529 0.583 Middle Atl
44 Johns Hopkins 0.880 (22-3) 0.471 0.504 0.582 Middle Atl
45 DePauw 0.826 (19-4) 0.488 0.522 0.581 South
46 Ohio Northern 0.667 (14-7) 0.565 0.527 0.581 Great Lakes
47 Lewis and Clark 0.737 (14-5) 0.540 0.501 0.580 West
48 Aurora 0.923 (24-2) 0.444 0.496 0.577 Midwest
49 Scranton 0.708 (17-7) 0.536 0.522 0.576 Middle Atl
50 Capital 0.704 (19-8) 0.535 0.529 0.576 Great Lakes
51 Averett 0.818 (18-4) 0.491 0.500 0.575 South
52 Carthage 0.619 (13-8) 0.570 0.542 0.575 Midwest
53 Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.815 (22-5) 0.488 0.502 0.573 South
54 Whitworth 0.870 (20-3) 0.451 0.521 0.573 West
55 Hamilton 0.696 (16-7) 0.539 0.515 0.572 East
56 Colby 0.636 (14-8) 0.555 0.540 0.572 Northeast
57 Bridgewater State 0.680 (17-8) 0.548 0.512 0.572 Northeast
58 McMurry 0.792 (19-5) 0.499 0.495 0.571 South
59 Richard Stockton 0.667 (14-7) 0.539 0.536 0.570 Atlantic
60 Rowan 0.714 (15-6) 0.520 0.527 0.570 Atlantic
61 Manhattanville 0.815 (22-5) 0.482 0.495 0.569 Atlantic
62 Guilford 0.833 (20-4) 0.468 0.496 0.566 South
63 Wittenberg 0.773 (17-5) 0.493 0.498 0.564 Great Lakes
64 Maryville (Tenn.) 0.875 (21-3) 0.433 0.512 0.563 South
65 Hope 0.800 (16-4) 0.474 0.504 0.563 Great Lakes
66 York (Pa.) 0.615 (16-10) 0.553 0.525 0.561 Middle Atl
67 UW-Whitewater 0.667 (18-9) 0.524 0.531 0.561 West
68 Stevens 0.778 (21-6) 0.484 0.493 0.560 Atlantic
69 William Paterson 0.625 (15-9) 0.545 0.522 0.559 Atlantic
70 Transylvania 0.692 (18-8) 0.516 0.514 0.559 Midwest
71 DeSales 0.708 (17-7) 0.498 0.529 0.558 Middle Atl
72 Alvernia 0.917 (22-2) 0.413 0.490 0.558 Middle Atl
73 Otterbein 0.600 (15-10) 0.554 0.524 0.558 Great Lakes
74 Coe 0.680 (17-8) 0.522 0.507 0.558 West
75 Utica 0.720 (18-7) 0.496 0.516 0.557 East

This a crude table, but I find the conclusions striking.  The WIAC would get 3 teams in, CCIW would get 3, NESCAC would get 5 + the AQ, UAA would get 4 + the AQ.  The cutoff would be Babson if rpi is the only criteria.

Which brings up something else, just by looking at this, I think a lot more weight is going to be put on Head-to-head, record vs ranked teams, etc.

But the bottom line is it puts the bigger and "stonger" D3 conferences in a much better position of catching C bids.  Which I think is what most of us really want to see.

I'm kind of excited to see this put into practice as it will undoubtedly affect seedings and pairing.  From the looks of it, it will be much much harder for a Lake Erie or Aurora to host a regional weekend.  What an entirely different tournament this would be. 8)

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat,

I think we are fundamentally on the same page, though I am more impatient to reach the 'they lived happily ever after' page!  And I AM grateful for the advances over the last few years.

I just can't figure out why d3 feels they need the 'enforced' regionalism rules.  Rationality says that would be the norm anyway.  It just seems to me that it is either 'puffery' ('we're more academic than thou'!) or extreme self-doubt (that d3 institutions are just champing at the bit to violate the concept of regionality).  I apologize for repeating myself, but the whole set of rules just seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[Pat Coleman]

Since regionalism is part of the overarching D-III philosophy, shouldn't it be written into these rules?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yes, EXCEPT...

If BOTH rationality and 'overarching D-III philosophy' point the same direction, are specific (sometimes confusing or nitpicky) rules necessary?

[John Gleich]

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I think that TRUE regionality (i.e. there are a certain number of Pool C's from each region) would be better even than what we currently have gotten. 

... Now, years like last year, this would have been terrible, of course, because the scales tipped in favor of the "power conferences..."


Let there be 2 Pool C bids from the West.  St. John's gets one, and then the WIAC ends up getting the second one... it puts ALOT more discussion into whether Oshkosh or La Crosse deserved the bid more, and they would be comparing the two conference foes for the bids, based on games played in the West region (and qualifying games from the administration regions...) as opposed to comparing West region teams' successes against the West region versus Northeast region teams' successes against NE Region teams.

The whole regionality of it is fairly absurd in the 21st century.  I understand that, yes, it is difficult for the primary selectors to really get to see and experience teams from the other side of their region, let alone from the other side of the country...  but what does it matter if it's selected off of national criterion as opposed to regional, on a national basis. 

... The more I think this over, the opponent's opponent winning percentage will be an improvement over JUST points earned from wins against opponents with x number of wins.  But if something ludicrous like winning 2/3 of a team's games does NOT count for the highest threshold, then this should be explicitly explained in the handbook which is so meticulously (cough, cough) put together.

BAH.  I just wish the NCAA at least APPEARED to care as much about all of this stuff as we do.  Is it too much to ask that they at least put up a facade of interest, care of detail and enthusiasm?

[Ralph Turner]

Using the RPI ratings from the front page, here's how are Pool C fight might have looked.  (AQ's are in bold; Pool B in italics.)

Rank Team Region Win%  Opp. Win% Opp. Opp. Win% RPI Region
1 Amherst 0.923 (24-2) 0.574 0.548 0.655 Northeast -1
2 UW-Stevens Point 0.960 (24-1) 0.552 0.537 0.650 West -1
3 Trinity (Conn.) 0.810 (17-4) 0.591 0.543 0.634 Northeast -2
4 Washington U. 0.818 (18-4) 0.561 0.548 0.622 Midwest -1
5 Brandeis 0.760 (19-6) 0.587 0.552 0.621 Northeast -3
6 Augustana 0.846 (22-4) 0.541 0.557 0.621 Midwest -2
7 Chicago 0.792 (19-5) 0.568 0.552 0.620 Midwest -3
8 Rhode Island College 0.889 (24-3) 0.524 0.540 0.619 Northeast -4
9 Rochester 0.750 (18-6) 0.586 0.549 0.618 East -1
10 WPI 0.870 (20-3) 0.521 0.541 0.613 Northeast -5
11 Ramapo 0.800 (20-5) 0.562 0.525 0.612 Atlantic -1
12 Salem State 0.923 (24-2) 0.503 0.512 0.610 Northeast -6
13 St. Thomas 0.889 (24-3) 0.516 0.507 0.607 West -2
14 Brockport State 0.815 (22-5) 0.532 0.519 0.600 East -2
15 UW-La Crosse 0.708 (17-7) 0.578 0.537 0.600 West -3
16 Mississippi College 0.958 (23-1) 0.470 0.500 0.599 South -1
17 Catholic 0.808 (21-5) 0.527 0.530 0.598 Middle Atl -1
18 St. John Fisher 0.808 (21-5) 0.529 0.519 0.596 East -3
19 UW-Oshkosh 0.750 (18-6) 0.548 0.538 0.596 West -4
20 Bates 0.708 (17-7) 0.575 0.523 0.595 Northeast -7
21 Centre 0.810 (17-4) 0.528 0.515 0.595 South -2
22 Tufts 0.600 (15-10) 0.612 0.552 0.594 Northeast -8
23 Elmhurst 0.739 (17-6) 0.539 0.560 0.594 Midwest -4
24 Loras 0.826 (19-4) 0.517 0.516 0.594 West -5
25 St. Lawrence 0.808 (21-5) 0.522 0.520 0.593 East -4
26 Keene State 0.800 (20-5) 0.515 0.540 0.593 Northeast -9
27 St. John's 0.833 (20-4) 0.508 0.507 0.589 West -6
28 Lincoln 0.786 (11-3) 0.523 0.521 0.588 Middle Atl -2
29 New York University 0.750 (18-6) 0.527 0.543 0.587 East -5
30 Messiah 0.800 (16-4) 0.510 0.528 0.587 Middle Atl -3
31 North Central 0.579 (11-8) 0.612 0.544 0.587 Midwest -5
32 Wooster 0.909 (20-2) 0.468 0.500 0.586 Great Lakes -1
33 Lake Erie 0.955 (21-1) 0.458 0.474 0.586 Great Lakes  -2
34 Babson 0.600 (15-10) 0.601 0.538 0.585 Northeast -10
**************************************************
35 New Jersey City 0.680 (17-8) 0.562 0.535 0.585 Atlantic
36 Virginia Wesleyan 0.846 (22-4) 0.500 0.494 0.585 South
37 Wheaton (Ill.) 0.619 (13-8) 0.590 0.541 0.585 Midwest
38 Occidental 0.824 (14-3) 0.510 0.498 0.585 West
39 Williams 0.600 (15-10) 0.593 0.548 0.584 Northeast
40 Hood 0.769 (20-6) 0.520 0.526 0.584 Middle Atl
41 John Carroll 0.720 (18-7) 0.547 0.522 0.584 Great Lakes
42 Plattsburgh State 0.739 (17-6) 0.536 0.521 0.583 East
43 King's 0.731 (19-7) 0.535 0.529 0.583 Middle Atl
44 Johns Hopkins 0.880 (22-3) 0.471 0.504 0.582 Middle Atl
45 DePauw 0.826 (19-4) 0.488 0.522 0.581 South
46 Ohio Northern 0.667 (14-7) 0.565 0.527 0.581 Great Lakes
47 Lewis and Clark 0.737 (14-5) 0.540 0.501 0.580 West
48 Aurora 0.923 (24-2) 0.444 0.496 0.577 Midwest
49 Scranton 0.708 (17-7) 0.536 0.522 0.576 Middle Atl
50 Capital 0.704 (19-8) 0.535 0.529 0.576 Great Lakes
51 Averett 0.818 (18-4) 0.491 0.500 0.575 South
52 Carthage 0.619 (13-8) 0.570 0.542 0.575 Midwest
53 Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.815 (22-5) 0.488 0.502 0.573 South
54 Whitworth 0.870 (20-3) 0.451 0.521 0.573 West
55 Hamilton 0.696 (16-7) 0.539 0.515 0.572 East
56 Colby 0.636 (14-8) 0.555 0.540 0.572 Northeast
57 Bridgewater State 0.680 (17-8) 0.548 0.512 0.572 Northeast
58 McMurry 0.792 (19-5) 0.499 0.495 0.571 South
59 Richard Stockton 0.667 (14-7) 0.539 0.536 0.570 Atlantic
60 Rowan 0.714 (15-6) 0.520 0.527 0.570 Atlantic
61 Manhattanville 0.815 (22-5) 0.482 0.495 0.569 Atlantic
62 Guilford 0.833 (20-4) 0.468 0.496 0.566 South
63 Wittenberg 0.773 (17-5) 0.493 0.498 0.564 Great Lakes
64 Maryville (Tenn.) 0.875 (21-3) 0.433 0.512 0.563 South
65 Hope 0.800 (16-4) 0.474 0.504 0.563 Great Lakes
66 York (Pa.) 0.615 (16-10) 0.553 0.525 0.561 Middle Atl
67 UW-Whitewater 0.667 (18-9) 0.524 0.531 0.561 West
68 Stevens 0.778 (21-6) 0.484 0.493 0.560 Atlantic
69 William Paterson 0.625 (15-9) 0.545 0.522 0.559 Atlantic
70 Transylvania 0.692 (18-8) 0.516 0.514 0.559 Midwest
71 DeSales 0.708 (17-7) 0.498 0.529 0.558 Middle Atl
72 Alvernia 0.917 (22-2) 0.413 0.490 0.558 Middle Atl
73 Otterbein 0.600 (15-10) 0.554 0.524 0.558 Great Lakes
74 Coe 0.680 (17-8) 0.522 0.507 0.558 West
75 Utica 0.720 (18-7) 0.496 0.516 0.557 East

Thanks sac, and +1!  This clearly shows that the Great Lakes Region has been overrated!   

This really puts the geographically dispersed areas of the country at a marked disadvantage.  This specific formula does not solve the problem of over-weighting the concentrated areas of the country, especially in the Northeast.

This is not what we want in the South.   Centre's is so high because they have 7 non-D3 games this season.  Three games in their 21 were Tourney games culled from the best 8 of the SCAC 10 teams.

Corrections appreciated.

[Ralph Turner]

That list has no Pool C bids going to the South or the Great Lakes!
 
Rochester and NYU (UAA) each get one and so does Brockport (SUNYAC) in the East.

One Pool C bid goes to the Mid-Atlantic, and Lincoln takes it Pool B bid to D2.    

I have to believe that a multi-million dollar research grant came out of the UAA Commissioners office to hugenerd's big computer to generate the UAA-Pool C bid Guarantee Proposal.  We see 4 UAA schools in the top 9 and NYU at #29. 

We left the Opp²R for a reason.  I think that the QOWI with the top stratum beginning at 2/3rd's of wins (.666) is better.

[diehardfan]

Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...

Sometimes posters forget to look at the losses as well as the wins.      Oh well.  I should be in Aurora to see the mighty MIAA, even though they both got smoked by two CCIW teams that aren't in the tourney (Carthage and Wheaton, IL) 

Oooooh..... mean! Pain, owww...

(curls into the fetal position and rocks back and forth)

[pufin]

This really puts the geographically dispersed areas of the country at a marked disadvantage.  This specific formula does not solve the problem of over-weighting the concentrated areas of the country, especially in the Northeast.

That list has no Pool C bids going to the South or the Great Lakes!
 
Rochester and NYU (UAA) each get one and so does Brockport (SUNYAC) in the East.

One Pool C bid goes to the Mid-Atlantic, and Lincoln takes it Pool B bid to D2. 

We left the Opp²R for a reason.  I think that the QOWI with the top stratum beginning at 2/3rd's of wins (.666) is better.

These are some of the things I was thinking, too, when I saw the RPI list. Five of the top 10 are in the Northeast, and only two of the top 33 are from the Great Lakes. I am not impugning the Northeast here, there are many good teams in the region, but I think it leads us to question the metric.

There is a regional advantage in certain parts of the country, which schools can take advantage of (very much within the rules). Wooster and Wittenberg are stuck with the "Dorkson Eight" (Oberlin, Hiram, et al) because there aren't a lot of weaker high-winning-percentage teams for those schools to take on. Oberlin had a (I believe) 5-18 (.217) regional record. Replace Baldwin-Wallace, Washington & Lee, and Wilmington with three (potentially?) winnable games like (for example) MIT, Curry, and Emmanuel, and their regional record could be 8-18 (.347), giving the Woosters and Wittenbergs a boost.

[diehardfan]

Incidentally, the NESCAC getting 5 teams? I'm all for the CCIW getting more than one bid and all, but this isn't better either. There has to be some better solution, and it probably unfortunately has to involve making the list not regional (taking into account things like Williams losing to Occidental would temper that NE list fast). Maybe we won't ever have a good solution?

How about the WIAC and CCIW just start playing eachother only once? 

[mrmike88]

Better yet, DHF, why not switch Wheaton (IL) with Wheaton (MA) to get a shot at all those NE teams?  Going down to once around helps a bit, but you guys will still all beat up on each other 

[diehardfan]

Better yet, DHF, why not switch Wheaton (IL) with Wheaton (MA) to get a shot at all those NE teams?  Going down to once around helps a bit, but you guys will still all beat up on each other 

Can you imagine? All of you students go over here to Mass, you guys all go over to Illinois. Ready, set... go!

While their weather is undoubtedly better than ours, we have some of the best food service in the country. Is there any chance their gym and work out facilities are better than ours? 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Really with the system that is in place now, upsets are the only thing that throws it off.

This tournament's C bids by region:

NE - 5
E - 2
A - 1
MA - 2
S - 4
GL - 2
MW - 1
W - 1

Until you get to those last two, everything looks just fine.  If you go back and factor in all of those improbable conference upsets Williams, Coast Guard, Platsburgh and HampdenSydney (I'm leaving in the ones that could have been expected because that always happens), you would have two less from NE, one less from E and one less from the South.

Out of those four, you have to figure at least three of them go to the W-MW schools and even up the regional coverage that the NCAA really wants.

I think we have to look at this year as an aberration rather than an example.  I don't think you're going to see four absolute 'C' locks upset by teams with no shot at the tournament every year.

The upsets we normally see are usually more of the C contender sort, like Catholic-Hood or Ramapo-NJCU.  When you have so many upsets by non-bubble teams, it throws things off.  I agree that bringing opponent's opponents record into the process a little, maybe as another measure available to the committees, is good, just not on the level that that "RPI" rankings would give it.