Pool C

[ChicagoHopeNut]

DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.

That leads to two questions:

1) Isn't OWP given greater strength than OOWP? (I don't trust the NCAA to read through anything).

2) I added this question into my post above because I couldnt' find the answer but a lot has happened on the board since then. Does the OWP and OOWP include a teams entire schedule? Or just D3 games? Or just in-region?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

DCHopeNut - my initial reaction/answer is that any non D3 games are NOT counted in the process. Also, the OWP is certainly looked at first, but it isn't like the OOWP is ignored. I am sure during a conversation of a team who has a big OWP that someone says - yes, but... look at the OOWP.

There is a reason they got rid of the QOWI and it was the fact that teams opponents - opponents winning percentage was NOT being looked at!

[ChicagoHopeNut]

DCHopeNut - my initial reaction/answer is that any non D3 games are NOT counted in the process. Also, the OWP is certainly looked at first, but it isn't like the OOWP is ignored. I am sure during a conversation of a team who has a big OWP that someone says - yes, but... look at the OOWP.

There is a reason they got rid of the QOWI and it was the fact that teams opponents - opponents winning percentage was NOT being looked at!

I admit that with the announcement of teams delayed until Monday the extra time does suggest the committee has a better opportunity to look through an uncommonly high OWP.

I just found this http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

That compilation only includes in-region games. Pat, is this the official policy of the NCAA or the assumption of d3hoops?

EDIT 2:PointSpecial on February 10, 2008, 11:12:24 pm
Are the OWP and the OOWP based solely off of teams that each particular ranked team has beaten or is it based off the entire schedule?

I THINK it's against every team, just clarifying...


It's interesting to me to see how things change from one week to the next...  UWSP had been ahead of Platteville, but they played two of the lower WIAC teams and they dropped as their OWP dropped to follow suit!

One more question... is the OWP and OOWP based off of the entire schedule, or just the ones that "count" (IE regional games)? End quote

Ralph Turner's response.
I understand it to be in-region games. [/quote]

[Ralph Turner]

+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc. 

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.

[sac]

hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.

This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

I disagree that teams are able to control that at all, over 2/3's of most teams OWP will come from conference games, on top of that you have tournaments.  You have absolutely zero control who you'll play in those tournaments.

[Hugenerd]

DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.

It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.

hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.

[Titan Q]

I just found this http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

That compilation only includes in-region games. Pat, is this the official policy of the NCAA or the assumption of d3hoops?

The Handbook makes it clear that regional competition-only is evaluated for the primary criteria...

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

(page 16)

[Pat Coleman]

DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.

It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.

hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.

I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.

[Knightstalker]

Would it be a better metric if for conference games only the OOWP was considered and OWP ignored?  The OWP for conference games in a conference with an even number of teams will always end up at .500.

[Hugenerd]

DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.

It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.

hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.

I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.

I understand that out-of-conference scheduling is up to each individual school, but I dont think in the case of the ASC, even if they played their 4 out-of-conference games against d3 in-region schools, it would make much difference in their OWP.  They would have to change the way they play their entire conference schedule.  This may not be possible due to travel restrictions/costs, availability of non-conference teams, etc.  I still think it gives conferences who only play a few conference games, too much of an advantage.

[All-around]

Lets say Amherst and UMD win both their tournaments and recieve pool A bids.

Is it fair to say Trinity and Bowdoin recieve pool C's.

And then who else...

RIC is next I am assuming?

Can a team like a 24-4 emerson college recieve one?

[pabegg]

Here are my updated rankings with games through Sunday:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01   0.6787 0.6016 0.5535 Amherst                   001  A w C       23-1 23-2
NE  13   02   02   0.6285 0.5319 0.5303 Mass-Dartmouth            003  A w C       23-2 23-2
NE  17   03   04   0.6136 0.5434 0.5414 Worcester Polytech        010  A w C       19-4 20-5
NE  90   04   03   0.6456 0.6100 0.5798 Brandeis                  014  C 2         18-5 19-5
NE  16   05   05   0.6194 0.5724 0.5327 Bowdoin                   015  C 3         20-5 20-5
NE  16   06   06   0.6277 0.5999 0.5283 Middlebury                020  C 5         18-5 19-6
NE  16   07   07   0.6387 0.6165 0.5490 Trinity (Conn.)           022  C 7         17-5 19-6
NE  12   08   09   0.5648 0.4419 0.5003 Emerson                   034  A w C       21-3 22-3
NE  13   09   08   0.5961 0.5469 0.5305 Rhode Island College      039  C 15        19-6 19-6
NE  16   10   10   0.5977 0.5765 0.5423 Bates                     050  C second    16-7 17-8
NE  15   11   11   0.5691 0.5102 0.4832 Elms                      054  A second    17-5 19-6
NE  14   12   12   0.5714 0.5110 0.5036 Salem State               056  A second    19-6 19-6

EA  23   01   01   0.6309 0.4980 0.5276 Plattsburgh State         002  A w C       20-0 23-2
EA  90   02   02   0.6343 0.5948 0.5649 Rochester                 017  C 4         18-5 19-5
EA  23   03   03   0.6049 0.5691 0.5312 Brockport State           035  C 13        15-5 18-7
EA  24   04   07   0.5954 0.5527 0.5144 St. Lawrence              037  A w C       16-5 17-8
EA  21   05   05   0.5613 0.4607 0.5236 Stevens                   046  A second    20-5 20-5
EA  21   06   04   0.5906 0.5552 0.5319 Nazareth                  052  C second    18-7 18-7
EA  23   07   06   0.5788 0.5420 0.5169 Oswego State              058  C second    15-6 18-6

AT  32   01   03   0.5814 0.5108 0.5214 Richard Stockton          036  A w C       18-5 18-6
AT  33   02   01   0.5590 0.4666 0.4767 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    19-4 20-5
AT  32   03   02   0.5802 0.5275 0.5158 William Paterson          049  C second    18-6 18-6

MA  45   01   01   0.6227 0.5120 0.5145 Ursinus                   004  A w C       20-1 23-2
MA  45   02   02   0.6199 0.5294 0.5161 Gettysburg                005  C 1         19-2 21-3
MA  42   03   03   0.6160 0.5601 0.5343 Widener                   016  A w C       17-4 20-5
MA  42   04   07   0.5963 0.5568 0.5443 Albright                  045  C second    16-6 16-7
MA  41   05   04   0.5825 0.5390 0.5020 York (Pa.)                047  A second    18-6 18-7
MA  43   06   05   0.5589 0.4651 0.5055 DeSales                   051  A second    16-4 20-5

SO  54   01   01   0.6129 0.5031 0.4981 Centre                    006  A w C       18-1 23-1
SO  51   02   02   0.6004 0.4940 0.5047 Mary Hardin-Baylor        008  A w C       20-2 22-3
SO  53   03   04   0.6053 0.5306 0.5267 Guilford                  011  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  53   04   03   0.5970 0.5198 0.5225 Virginia Wesleyan         021  C 6         19-4 20-5
SO  54   05   05   0.5847 0.4756 0.4929 Millsaps                  024  C 8         17-2 22-3
SO  52   06   06   0.5719 0.4511 0.4967 Maryville (Tenn.)         030  B 1         16-2 22-2
SO  53   07   08   0.5885 0.5384 0.5272 Randolph-Macon            044  C second    15-5 20-5
SO  54   08   07   0.5708 0.5063 0.5088 DePauw                    053  C second    16-5 19-6
SO  51   09   09   0.5707 0.5070 0.5066 Mississippi College       055  C second    165 19-5

GL  62   01   03   0.5979 0.5064 0.4963 Hope                      012  A w C       15-2 21-3
GL  64   02   01   0.6035 0.5284 0.5239 Capital                   013  A w C       20-4 21-4
GL  63   03   02   0.5852 0.4844 0.4899 Wooster                   025  A w C       15-2 22-3
GL  64   04   04   0.5941 0.5189 0.5202 Heidelberg                028  C 9         18-4 20-5
GL  61   05   06   0.5719 0.4662 0.4917 Penn State-Behrend        032  A w C       19-3 21-4
GL  62   06   05   0.5678 0.4744 0.4987 Albion                    040  C 16        14-3 18-5
GL  63   07   08   0.5751 0.5255 0.4874 Ohio Wesleyan             048  C second    16-5 17-7

MW  74   01   02   0.6142 0.5245 0.5077 Lawrence                  007  A w C       18-2 20-2
MW  90   02   01   0.6647 0.6467 0.5652 Washington U.             009  A w C       16-4 19-5
MW  71   03   03   0.6244 0.5752 0.5553 Augustana                 018  A w C       19-5 20-5
MW  90   04   05   0.6183 0.6053 0.5670 Chicago                   041  C 17        16-7 17-7
MW  71   05   06   0.6042 0.5769 0.5489 Wheaton (Ill.)            042  C second    15-6 19-6
MW  76   06   08   0.5595 0.4926 0.4801 Webster                   057  A second    17-5 19-5
MW  73   07   09   0.5525 0.4662 0.4949 Aurora                    059  B 2         18-5 20-5

WE  82   01   01   0.5960 0.4990 0.5222 St. Thomas                019  A w C       19-3 21-4
WE  84   02   03   0.6004 0.5309 0.5275 Occidental                023  A w C       13-3 20-4
WE  86   03   02   0.6143 0.5747 0.5251 UW-Stevens Point          026  A w C       18-5 20-5
WE  81   04   04   0.5903 0.4958 0.5276 Buena Vista               027  A w C       16-3 20-5
WE  86   05   07   0.5874 0.4923 0.5391 UW-Whitewater             029  C 10        19-4 21-4
WE  81   06   05   0.5929 0.5183 0.5350 Loras                     031  C 11        16-4 19-6
WE  84   07   06   0.5809 0.4975 0.5285 Cal Lutheran              033  C 12        16-4 20-4
WE  86   08   09   0.5898 0.5256 0.5351 UW-Platteville            038  C 14        17-5 19-6
WE  89   09   11   0.5398 0.3873 0.5274 Nebraska Wesleyan         060  B 3         6-1 13-12


I've trimmed the rankings down to the top 60 nationally, as no one below that has any shot at a Pool C bid.

The top 31, through Loras, have probably clinched a Pool C bid already if they need one.

The next set of teams down to #41 Chicago are on the bubble, subject to seeing bids disappear with hgiher ranked teams gettting upset in conference tournaments.

There typically isn't much movement in tournament week. With the exception of the UAA, Pool C contestants will have exactly one loss this week (no losses would mean that they win the Pool A bid). NOTE: I just realized that the St. Louis and Southern Cal conferences both have one league game left before tournament time. So Cal Lutheran must win their final regular season game to hold onto their position.

Scranton leads Chapman and Moravian in the race for the final Pool B slot, but Nebraska Wesleyan's bid really depends on how they do in the D3 Independents Tournament.

[Hugenerd]

Would it be a better metric if for conference games only the OOWP was considered and OWP ignored?  The OWP for conference games in a conference with an even number of teams will always end up at .500.

It doesnt matter if the number of conference games is even, as long as someone wins and someone loses every game, the average will 0.500.

OOWP is only slightly better than OWP.  Lets say you play in a league where everyone plays 14 conference games, therefore 14*14/(25*25) = 31% of the games used to calculate OWP are in-conference ; for OOWP, this number drops to 14^3/25^3 = 18%.  Only slightly better.

Lets see how # of conference games will effect different conferences.  In the NESCAC they only 9 conference games, so the % of conference games used to calculate your OWP is 9*9/(25*25) = 13%.  On the other hand, in the ASC (21 conference games), this percent is 21^2/25^2=71%.

[fpc85]

+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc. 

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.

If no rules are broken why should they be penalized. It is the rules that should be changed.

[Ralph Turner]

The SCAC is similarly afflicted with OWP's at parity.

193 Centre               18-1     .947     0.503     0.498
278 Millsaps              17-2     .895     0.476     0.493
176 DePauw             16-5     .762     0.506     0.509
219 Oglethorpe        14-7     .667     0.496     0.511
231 Trinity (Texas)     13-7     .650     0.493     0.509
226 Hendrix                8-10     .444     0.494     0.495
172 Southwestern      8-11     .421     0.507     0.498
116 Rhodes                7-12     .368     0.523     0.490
118 Austin                 8-15     .348     0.523     0.483
141 Sewanee              6-16     .273     0.516     0.496
158 Colorado College      0-18     .000     0.511     0.502

I believe that it is the lack of schools in proximity that prevents these schools from rising to the top.  It seems to me to be a "compounding interest" problem.

Hugenerd showed one component of it, but the fact the Northeast Region schools (and the UAA schools) can build schedules that pick the cream of the cream allows them to hit the high OWP numbers.