MBB: NEWMAC

[Hugenerd]

Hugenerd - my reference to rankings was just in week 1 of rankings... the committee can't go and rank the teams... then look at the rankings and say, "oh, so-and-so beat a ranked team, let's move them up" and RERANK the teams again... all in week 1... so thus, results vs. regionally ranked opponents is not considered in the first week.

MIT is the one scheduling, for the most part, weak non-conference games. They are not that far from some NESCAC teams... play a couple of those and their SOS would increase.

BBallers... you are comparing apples and oranges when you talk about San Diego State and the Big East... and Division III. These standards are voted on by the Division III members... all 440 or so. This isn't something the NCAA came up with on its own. The same is true for D1 when it comes to selections and thus why the idea of "how did they do the last ten games of the season" is taken into consideration - D1 member institutions voted for that.

The criteria is out there... it has been the same for a few years with some small tweaks here and there (i.e. changing the formula for home and away games slightly this year)... and if you play a weak non-conference schedule and are in a weak conference to begin with, things are not going to go your way - you have to be careful with your schedule.

Also... remember... this is just the first week. We have two more weeks of rankings... and then the final rankings which determine who is in and who is out and who plays who in the NCAA tournament (though, those rankings will come out AFTER we find out the bracket). These rankings can thus change! However, it does give you the sense that MIT has to be careful with the rest of the season. Too many slip-ups (and they have had far too many close games for as how well they were playing at the beginning of the season) and they could be forced to win the AQ to get in... or be sitting on the sideline.

If non-conference schedule is the issue, why is Amherst #1?  They played arguably a worse non-conference slate than MIT (7-14 Plymouth State, 12-10 Washington and Lee, 8-14 WNE, 10-12 Lasell, 15-7 Springfield, 14-9 Westfield State, 10-12 Emmanuel, 11-12 Babson, 12-8 Brandeis [Loss], 10-12 Anna Maria, 5-17 Marymount, 16-5 RIC).  How does that stand out from MIT if you are only talking about out-of-conference.  Amherst has only played 3 teams with winning percentages of 0.600 or better out-of-conference, Brandeis, Springfield, and RIC, and went 2-1 in those games.  MIT has also beat Springfield twice, in addition to Tufts and Salem State who are both also over 0.600.  Clearly Amherst is getting a boost in their OWP/OOWP from some of the teams in their conference, but seriously, you are telling me Amherst's resume warrants a #1, while MIT warrants a #7?  Overall, Amherst is 6-2 (2-1 out-of-conference) vs. teams with 0.600 winning percentages or higher, MIT is 4-1 (2-0 out-of conference). Is that really such a huge difference?  Thats why I think there is clearly too much emphasis on this OWP/OOWP value. You play a couple really bad teams and all of a sudden (like 12-15 games below 0.500) and there goes your OWP/OOWP.  Why not do a 10% trimmed mean OWP/OOWP, take off the bottom 10% and top 10% and see where the numbers fall then (2 worst and 2 best, for example). I think MIT is really getting overpenalized for playing a couple really bad teams, because other than MITs games vs. Mass-Boston and Emerson, MITs out-of-conference schedule looks a lot like Amherst's.

Also, with regard to their recent close games - those are conference games.  MIT has had the same team for 3 years essentially. Everyone knows everyone else, so there is a chance of having highly competitive games.  Have you looked at the WPI vs. Wheaton results?  And really, the results havent been that close outside of the Springfield game, which was on the road against a team with an over 0.700 winning percentage at that time.  Nobody is knocking Middlebury for only beating Bowdoin by 3 or Williams by 1 (who are unranked teams with good records, like Springfield).  Recently, MIT beat Babson by 12 (it was a close game, but they still won by double-digits, have you looked at the Amherst-Babson box score?), Wheaton by 29 (who beat WPI twice), Coast Guard by 25, Clark by 18... I am failing to see all the recent close games. I didn't think margin of victory was a criteria anyway, right?

In any case, my main point is that I dont undestand why, out of the 5 primary criteria, OWP/OOWP is taking the lions share of the attention? Is that some unwritten rule that I am missing, because really, in my opinion, Amherst and Middlebury have very similar out-of-conference schedules to MIT, but their OWP/OOWP numbers are being bumped because their conference has a few more strong teams at the top.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hungenerd, I was pointing out that MIT's somewhat weak out-of-conference schedule is not helping them considering their weak conference. Amherst has a very strong conference schedule that helps them out! Also, Amherst out-of-conference opponents WP is 130-132... that is a better percentage.

Also, Washington and Lee and Marymount do not count on Amherst schedule for primary criteria... they are non-region games.

And here are the numbers to consider:
Amherst... In-Region OWP: 0.614... In-Region OOWP: 0.587... In-Region SOS: 0.605
MIT... In-Region OWP: 0.480... In-Region OOWP: 0.524... In-Region SOS: 0.494

While you might not like the fact that those numbers are being considered in what you call a lion's share of the criteria (and we don't know how the RAC is considering the numbers in just the FIRST week of rankings)... those numbers are not even close!

Also, remember, next week games against regional opponents will be taken into account and that could change the landscape once again.

[Hugenerd]

While you might not like the fact that those numbers are being considered in what you call a lion's share of the criteria (and we don't know how the RAC is considering the numbers in just the FIRST week of rankings)... those numbers are not even close!

When you say not even close, what is that based on?  If I were to say that I defined a statistic and Team A has a value 99 and Team B has a 98, you may think, wow that is really close. Until I tell you that the standard deviation is 0.0001, which in that case the numbers are not even close.  Conversely, in a similar analysis if I said Team A had a value of 0.60 and Team B had a value of 0.50, you may say that is not even close, but that would be a very naive statement without any information about the variability of this statistic.  What if we actually ran somes stats on this value and found out that the variability is on the order 0.10 or 0.05? Then a 0.1 difference doesnt seem so huge anymore does it?  In the end, ignoring home and away weighting, the difference in a 0.60 OWP and a 0.50 OWP is playing opponents who average a 12-8 record vs. playing opponents who play a 10-10 record (and a 0.55 would be opponents averaging an 11-9 record).  So lets forget Amherst for the moment, lets look at East Conn (OWP= 0.525) and West Conn (0.570).  You are telling me that a 17-4 record against opponents that are on average 10.5-9.5 and 11.5-8.5 is really better than a record of 20-1 against opponets that are on average 10-10? Really?

Also, how do you explain Becker being ranked above Albertus?  They beat them head-to-head.  So head-to-head matters in the case of MIT/WPI comparison or other comparisons, but not in that case? Why are we applying criteria selectively? Who else did Albertus beat? Oh yeah, West Conn, you think Abertus' 20-1 mark isn't helping West Conn's OWP?  These metrics need to be looked at in context and logically, which currently they are not.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

And you are making grand assumptions on how the committee is using criteria. We have no idea what weight they are using to rank the teams... also it is an evolving system and each comparison of teams is going to be a discussion. I am just pointing out the material that is the most obvious...

Amherst: In-Region OWP: 0.614... In-Region OOWP: 0.587... In-Region SOS: 0.605
MIT:       In-Region OWP: 0.480... In-Region OOWP: 0.524... In-Region SOS: 0.494

That gives Amherst a +.134... +.063... +.111 - those are significant differences.

FYI...
AM:       In-Region OWP: 0.415... In-Region OOWP: 0.475... In-Region SOS: 0.435
Becker:  In-Region OWP: 0.527... In-Region OOWP: 0.478... In-Region SOS: 0.511

That gives Becker a +.112... -.003... +.076.

Apparently the committee feels those numbers outweigh the head-to-head at this time.

Also... you do know this is NOT the poll they will select teams to the NCAA from, right? And before the final poll, the national committee could ask the NE to reconsider... AND next week record vs. regional ranked teams will take affect... and that could swing things again.

Just consider all of this... because it might be the reason why the SOS is getting a bit more weight right now, but will lose some of that weight next Wednesday when other factors are able to be used (and more games have been played affecting those SOS numbers).

[pjunito]

D-Mac;
I think a lot of people get fired up at "rankings" because they see good basketball teams not get "respect".  You have been gracious to inform us all on how teams are ranked (for week 1), what factors are considered, and how it impacts the NCAA field. I don't agree with how things are weighed in the selection process of the Northeast regional rankings.. But nobody ask me before the region agreed to this formula. I do however believe that SOS is weighed too heavily. West Conn for example has 4 losses, 1 to Albertus and 1 to East Conn, those teams have a combined 38-6 record. Those teams inflate the SOS significantly; therefore West Conn's lost to Albertus or East Conn helps them more than the teams that actually won. I don't think that makes sense.

However, the boards have been active.... and maybe next year teams will schedule harder non confernece opponents...

I am just glad that a national champion isn't given based on SOS.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

pjunto - fair points... though, I will say that in the past the weight was more on the number of losses in region only... and that gave an unfair advantage to teams that scheduled cupcake non-conference teams to keep from losing... this at least keeps that from happening as well.

It is really simple and it is something coaches have been educated on, schedule accordingly. If you have easy opponents on your schedule that you control, you are not going to be rewarded because you beat up on them. If your schedule is a bit more challenging and you have a blemish, the fact you challenged yourself will be taken into account. I know coaches have been told this across the country... and some are just too stubborn to change their tactics (not saying this is the case here, please don't misunderstand).

These criteria have been the ground rules for several seasons now, none of this is new.

[WPI89]

Wow - head spinning stuff on all the rankings - certainly no impartial observer, who has seen any NE D3 hops this year would rank MIT any lower than 3 (possibly behind Amherst and Middlebury) - just doesn't feel right - heck for half the year - Massey had the NEWMAC ranked as the top conference in the country - now it is a "weak conference" after essentially nothing bu league play - also makes no sense.

Simple formula for WPI now - win their tourney or go home.  Brutal loss last night - thought if they survived until the MIT game and only lost that - they were in prime position for an at large - now it is win or go home.  Is Eli available to play point?

[WPI89]

ps - Is Lin-Sanity big up here in NEWMAC land?  It is taking over in NYC - front and back page story!

"NY Knicks breakout star Jeremy Lin -- the no-name from Harvard who's been sleeping on his brother's couch -- has some great news ... HE'S FINALLY MOVING INTO HIS OWN PLACE!!"

[Hugenerd]

And you are making grand assumptions on how the committee is using criteria. We have no idea what weight they are using to rank the teams... also it is an evolving system and each comparison of teams is going to be a discussion. I am just pointing out the material that is the most obvious...

Amherst: In-Region OWP: 0.614... In-Region OOWP: 0.587... In-Region SOS: 0.605
MIT:       In-Region OWP: 0.480... In-Region OOWP: 0.524... In-Region SOS: 0.494

That gives Amherst a +.134... +.063... +.111 - those are significant differences.

FYI...
AM:       In-Region OWP: 0.415... In-Region OOWP: 0.475... In-Region SOS: 0.435
Becker:  In-Region OWP: 0.527... In-Region OOWP: 0.478... In-Region SOS: 0.511

That gives Becker a +.112... -.003... +.076.

Apparently the committee feels those numbers outweigh the head-to-head at this time.

Also... you do know this is NOT the poll they will select teams to the NCAA from, right? And before the final poll, the national committee could ask the NE to reconsider... AND next week record vs. regional ranked teams will take affect... and that could swing things again.

Just consider all of this... because it might be the reason why the SOS is getting a bit more weight right now, but will lose some of that weight next Wednesday when other factors are able to be used (and more games have been played affecting those SOS numbers).

I hope so...because I still disagree with your use of the word 'significant' because we have no idea of this number's variability. In statistical terms, you can say something is significant only if you can assign a strong probability to it.  If they are ranking teams solely based on objective numbers, I would feel more comfortable if the selection committee were made up of statisticians from the respective schools rather than coaches.  I feel that in that case the variables being considered would at least be analyzed properly instead of using simplistic, arbitrary cut offs (eg, OWP/OOWP <0.50 = bad, 0.55 = good, 0.60 = very good, and that these values are all clearly significantly different from one another).

Also, many times, rankings are adjusted based on the previous weeks rankings, and are not done completely from scratch.  That is my main concern and why I am so fired up.

pjunto - fair points... though, I will say that in the past the weight was more on the number of losses in region only... and that gave an unfair advantage to teams that scheduled cupcake non-conference teams to keep from losing... this at least keeps that from happening as well.

It is really simple and it is something coaches have been educated on, schedule accordingly. If you have easy opponents on your schedule that you control, you are not going to be rewarded because you beat up on them. If your schedule is a bit more challenging and you have a blemish, the fact you challenged yourself will be taken into account. I know coaches have been told this across the country... and some are just too stubborn to change their tactics (not saying this is the case here, please don't misunderstand).

These criteria have been the ground rules for several seasons now, none of this is new.

In this case however, the top NESCAC teams, who are ranked #1 and #2 are not scheduling that great out of conference and only being boosted by their conference marks, so why are they being rewarded, because they play in a conference with historically strong teams?  That has nothing to do with how they are scheduling out of conference or suggesting that their coaches are making the effort to schedule better teams.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Hugenerd, I don't know the s.d. of SOS (and am not about to compute it myself!), but here's a different way of looking at 'significance'.  In a closed system (such as d3) I assume the 'average' SOS is .500.  MIT's SOS is therefore slightly below average - for the sake of argument, let's say 230th of the 440+ teams.  As far as I have noticed so far, Amherst's .605 just might be the highest in the country.  THAT is a significant difference by most any meaning of 'significant'!

[Hugenerd]

Hugenerd, I don't know the s.d. of SOS (and am not about to compute it myself!), but here's a different way of looking at 'significance'.  In a closed system (such as d3) I assume the 'average' SOS is .500.  MIT's SOS is therefore slightly below average - for the sake of argument, let's say 230th of the 440+ teams.  As far as I have noticed so far, Amherst's .605 just might be the highest in the country.  THAT is a significant difference by most any meaning of 'significant'!

I understand what you are saying, but the contention it is all on the coach is not true.  Amhersts out-of-conference OWP is also around 0.500.

Also, what about a team like East Conn?  Does the difference between OWP/OOWP of 0.53 vs. 0.50 make up for 4 losses?  That seems marginal to me, but it seems people are making out each 0.01 to be some huge deal, when that isnt necessarily the case.  Further, a team like East Conn is getting a lot of credit for losing to good teams, with respect to their OWP/OOWP.  The combined record of teams East Conn has beat is 157-193 (0.449), to date. The combined record of teams East Conn has lost to is 82-20 (0.804).  So is East Conn's OWP/OOWP really more impressive than MIT's, considering the combined win percentage of teams they have beat is only 0.449?  Should they really be rewarded for losing to 5 teams that are inflating their OWP? (I know the last one did not count towards this week's rankings, but the argument is similar even before their recent loss).  Which goes back to my main assertion, the OWP/OOWP statistic is misleading when taken at face value.  Whether it be with regard to what a significant difference is or whether the teams you lose to are inflating your numbers, there are many intricacies you have to pay attention to and putting too much faith in this one metric is probably not a good idea.

[Pat Coleman]

I hope so...because I still disagree with your use of the word 'significant' because we have no idea of this number's variability.

Go take a look at the numbers linked in our regional rankings page. That will give you the idea.

[amh63]

It seems that someone......maybe a poster on this board... figured out how to "rig" the latest poll on the D3hoops website.  Seems that there is an institution in the Boston area that has a know reputation for coming up such things.   No..it is not the case of Yale or Harvard stealing the daily newspaper of the other school and replacing it with one full of fake news.

[Hugenerd]

I hope so...because I still disagree with your use of the word 'significant' because we have no idea of this number's variability.

Go take a look at the numbers linked in our regional rankings page. That will give you the idea.

Do you mean the release provided by the NCAA? I have seen that. I didn't see any other numbers linked. What I mean by variability is more of of a standard deviation that could be applied to an OWP/OOWP value, not the range of numbers.

It seems that someone......maybe a poster on this board... figured out how to "rig" the latest poll on the D3hoops website.  Seems that there is an institution in the Boston area that has a know reputation for coming up such things.   No..it is not the case of Yale or Harvard stealing the daily newspaper of the other school and replacing it with one full of fake news.

I have no idea what this means.



I still don't get how 4-5 loss LEC teams, whose OWPs in games they have actually won is in the mid 0.400s get ranked above 20-1 teams.  I really hope they start from scratch each week, because MITs OWP is likely to increase because of their last 2 road games. And just to give you an example as to how sensitive the OWP stat is to a single game: WPI should have about an 0.800 WP when they host MIT, add to that the away weighting factor and you get a single game OWP value of 1.0. The difference between that and their current average OWP is 0.50 (1.0-0.50), divided by their total games (24) gives you a delta of over 0.02. That means that that single game could change their OWP from 0.50 to over 0.52, or in committee member's terms, 'borderline bad-average' to 'good'.  Should that game mean that much, especially because its on the road? I really don't think so. And since the the OWP value will increase regardless of the outcome of the game, does MIT move up in the rankings just if they show up (lets say if they are 22-2 at years end with a 0.525 OWP/OOWP)?

[mass_d3fan]

"Is Eli available to play point?"

Eli? Eli Manning?  or someone else?