Pool C

[Mr. Ypsi]

I have a question on the primary criteria which I believe has been discussed before, but it may have been before they added the administrative regions qualifier.  If teams are in-region due to administrative regions, but ranked in different regions (e.g., IWU vs. Oxy), is that a relevant game for the primary criterion of 'record against regionally-ranked teams'?

[Gregory Sager]

pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

Hyde Park and Greencastle are only about 170 miles apart.  Should be in-region.

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

Right, because U.S. 231 between Lafayette and Greencastle is clearly a mirage and doesn't exist in the real world.

Perhaps if the state of Indiana dug a canal from Lafayette to Greencastle and then ran a ferry down it from the I-65 Lafayette exit to DePauw's parking lot, mappoint.msn.com would recognize the route and the D3 selection committee could therefore consider Chicago @ DePauw a regional game.

[Pat Coleman]

I have a question on the primary criteria which I believe has been discussed before, but it may have been before they added the administrative regions qualifier.  If teams are in-region due to administrative regions, but ranked in different regions (e.g., IWU vs. Oxy), is that a relevant game for the primary criterion of 'record against regionally-ranked teams'?

Yes. It doesn't say "record against regionally-ranked teams in the same region as you."

[NYBB]

Is Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

[Gregory Sager]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.

Actually, nothing's in the handbook in that regard. The selection criteria is "strength-of-schedule" which has subitems OWP and OOWP. There's nothing in there about how to combine the subitems to get strength-of-schedule, which is what leads me to guess that they're using the traditional combination.

I'm not sure how the committee is going to combine OWP and OOWP, either, but it's pretty clear from the way that the primary criteria are listed in the handbook (see D-Mac's last post) that they will be combined. That should answer, at least in part, Bob's question about the weight of OWP and OOWP relative to the primary criteria as a whole. OWP and OOWP combine to form one of the five primary criteria, so if the committee holds true to the handbook neither OWP nor OOWP should by itself carry as much weight as do win-loss percentage, head-to-head, etc.

[LogShow]

Shouldn't the criteria just be all the teams in the D3Hoops.com Top 25 that didn't get the AQ   

I would vote for that rule change

[pabegg]

Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?

I'll chime in and let Patrick answer when he can.

I've been examining the Pool C situation pretty closely lately and I have Heidelberg right on the bubble right now.  They really need to finish the regular season with two wins if they're going to lose in the OAC tournament.  While Heidelberg's in-region winning percentage is very good (16-4, .800), their OWP is very low (.497).  For comparison, Rochester's OWP is .637.

They need to win that Capital game.

I'd concur with Bob that they need to beat Capital to make the tournament as a Pool C.

I've got them at #14 for Pool C bids, which is really on the bubble at the moment, as normally 4-6 of these bids go away when higher ranked teams get upset in their conference tournaments. So even running the table into the conference final might not be enough, depending on what the teams around them do.

Their strength of schedule numbers are actually pretty comparable to teams around them, such as Cal Lutheran, UW-Whitewater, and Albion. But where Heidelberg is at a disadvantage is that they've only played one ranked team (Capital), which will hurt them in that aspect of the selection.

[Pat Coleman]

Just found out that DePauw/Chicago IS a regional game. (The error with DePauw was the game with Colorado College.)

[smedindy]

Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh....

[Mr. Ypsi]

Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh....

Don't fret, smed.  My objection was on behalf of the Maroons - the Dannies were just an unfortunate by-product!

[pabegg]

Just found out that DePauw/Chicago IS a regional game. (The error with DePauw was the game with Colorado College.)

That make put a stake in Chicago's Pool C chances, by adding a regional loss, and bring DePauw back into the picture.

If Chicago wins its final 3 games, they get the Pool A autobid for the UAA, according to some of the calculations on UAA tie-breakers that have been done here.

If they're 2-1, it's hard to imagine them getting in even with no upset losses by the top tier of teams in conference tournaments.

[gordonmann]

Is Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

[sac]

Is Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

how many unranked teams had a percentage that low?

[imderekpoe]

Is Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

how many unranked teams had a percentage that low?

Looks like a total of 19 teams (out of 396) had an OWP lower than .400.  Brooklyn's is only better than Fisk (.342), Keystone (.337), Randolph (.311) and Green Mountain (.301)

[DPU3619]

Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh....

I was fairly certain that the Chicago game was a region game.  Somebody had mentioned something to me about the problem with Colorado about a week ago, but for the life of me, I couldn't remember who it was or if they had any idea what they were talking about.