Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

In fact, looking back on it, there is probably more sense in the idea of creating a regional multiplier every year to help regulate the QOWI number.  If you use an opponent's opponent kind of system to create a multiplier that indicates conference strength, things would be a little more even.

4 losses in the MA might equal 6 or 7 in the MW.  I'll leave the actual math to those people who can do it (and there are certainly those capable of it here), but that's where the real trouble comes in.  We all know that 4 losses in the MW is not the same as 4 losses in the MA, but we have no way of quantifying it.

[diehardfan]

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

That isn't a bad point. Last year the WIAC and the CCIW got 3 bids each. When the CCIW goes 75%ish against non-conf opponents I don't see how we could be having problems against non-conf opponents in terms of getting a Pool C... We just beat eachother up a little more than normal this year so that teams like Elmhurst, who only had one non-conf blip, ended up with a low in-region win % and QOWI. 

[smoothswat]

I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.  They lost to Stevens, who you claim has no right to be in the tourney, by 21 points.  I suggest not to just change the system for the sake of changing the system because a few teams missed out that might have deserved bids.  Otherwise you'll be changing the system each year, and then you'll just end up like the BCS, where everyone is always unhappy with the outcome. 

[sac]

I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.  They lost to Stevens, who you claim has no right to be in the tourney, by 21 points. 

I've looked pretty hard and can't see where anyone on this thread made such a claim. 



I think the whole point is the RPI system will put the bigger, stronger conferences in a better position to get C bids, remember your regional ranking is still going to influence who gets discussed when it comes to C's.  I highly doubt some of the 4 and 5 th teams from a particular conference will always be ranked in  any particular year.

Other criteria, I hope, will play a bigger role in the selection process.

RPI and for that matter QOWI not only affects selection but also seeding.  It will be much harder for a team from a weaker conference to garner a high seed and host situation.
Probably the two biggest complaint quotes on this site are "How did team
A not get in over team C ?" and "How did team C get to host over team B"  On the surface at least RPI is an improvement in those areas.

[Pat Coleman]

I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.

It's just one measurement and it is not the one and only crtierion.

[golden_dome]

I think the whole point is the RPI system will put the bigger, stronger conferences in a better position to get C bids, remember your regional ranking is still going to influence who gets discussed when it comes to C's.  I highly doubt some of the 4 and 5 th teams from a particular conference will always be ranked in  any particular year.

There will still be problems using the RPI where certain regions have an advantage, not just conferences. The south would be at a great disadvantage. Using the power rankings on the front page, no south teams would get an at-large this year including the defending NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, Virginia Wesleyan.

Large conferences like the ASC would take a hit because we play so many conference games. ASC West teams can schedule four out of conference games in a region where there aren't weaker leagues to cherry pick from. The CCIW has eleven out of conference opportunities to inflate their RPI.

I am not knocking the CCIW, just using them as an example. I understand they are the top confence right now. It is unfortunate they got the shaft, but it happens to some teams every year. I just don't think the NCAA should revamp everything just because one year that league only got one team in.

[Knightstalker]

It was probably me that indicated Stevens did not belong.  I know the numbers say they do, but unless they have a great run and make me eat my words I say they are not that good a team.  They have played the scheduling game properly in my opinion and that has gotten them a most likely one and out invitation.

[tjcummingsfan]

Large conferences like the ASC would take a hit because we play so many conference games. ASC West teams can schedule four out of conference games in a region where there aren't weaker leagues to cherry pick from. The CCIW has eleven out of conference opportunities to inflate their RPI.

I am not knocking the CCIW, just using them as an example. I understand they are the top confence right now. It is unfortunate they got the shaft, but it happens to some teams every year. I just don't think the NCAA should revamp everything just because one year that league only got one team in.

I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 

[Ralph Turner]

I actually believe that the way that the CCIW and WIAC were left out was "the perfect storm".

If Elmhurst beats Simpson, their QOWI rises by about 0.400.

If Oshkosh beats LaCrosse only one measly time out of three, their QOWI rises by about 0.400.

I can see the direct impact that a loss has on the QOWI, and roughly calculate it in a hurry.  In the oppsoppsrecord, I am not sure of the impact.


(What are going to call the Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage?  The Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage--the OOP?)

[golden_dome]

I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 

I can't argue that the system isn't flawed, I know in some cases it does not work. But I am just pointing out that if we went strictly by the power rankings then a completely new group of deserving kids would be left at home.

Everyone is up in arms that #9 Oshkosh, #13 Elmhurst and #16 LaCrosse got left out. But the power rankings would have left out #4 Virginia Wesleyan, #10 Hope and #19 Guilford. How is that an improvement?

[Ralph Turner]

Chris Brooks, I tell McMurry's Coach Holmes and MissCollege's Coach Jones to maximize their OOP!

Play on 14 ASC-West games (12 on the ASC-East).

Cherry pick 2-4 other D3's in this area that will help your OOP to make up for the bottom feeders in the conference.

Play the rest of your games versus NAIA, NCCAA, USCAA's, others and D2's.

Bold Challenge to all comers!

Tell me why that is not the ultimate strategy that McMurry and Miss College or anyone should not follow!

The OOPs does not build D3 or D3 conferences!

Okay friends, give me your best intellectual posts! 

Build a better mousetrap!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 

I can't argue that the system isn't flawed, I know in some cases it does not work. But I am just pointing out that if we went strictly by the power rankings then a completely new group of deserving kids would be left at home.

Everyone is up in arms that #9 Oshkosh, #13 Elmhurst and #16 LaCrosse got left out. But the power rankings would have left out #4 Virginia Wesleyan, #10 Hope, #14 Aurora and #19 Guilford. How is that an improvement?

Aurora would have gotten in; they're pool B this year.

[diehardfan]

(What are going to call the Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage?  The Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage--the OOP?)

I'm just glad I don't have to say that on the air.   

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

We could call it the Percentage of Opponents' Opponents or POO.

[Knightstalker]

OOP, POO, I think the NCAA already uses those criteria.