MBB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

HSCfan · February 17, 2009, 05:38:33 AM

Exactly, Pat. Division I conferences (e.g. the ACC) do this because unbalanced schedules mean "easier" schedules for some and "tougher" schedules for others. The only way to safeguard against any bias come tourney time is to let everyone in. More times than not, everything will work itself out in the end...sometimes a No. 9 may topple a No. 8, but most of the time, the teams that deserve to be in the final eight will be there.

I don't know much about the women, but if they play the same type of unbalanced schedule, they should also let everyone in. It's not a statement of "let's give everyone a chance!"...it's more trying to accomodate for the tougher schedules that greet some teams in the unbalanced system.

hasanova · February 17, 2009, 08:35:06 AM

Quote from: HSCfan on February 17, 2009, 05:38:33 AM
Exactly, Pat. Division I conferences (e.g. the ACC) do this because unbalanced schedules mean "easier" schedules for some and "tougher" schedules for others. The only way to safeguard against any bias come tourney time is to let everyone in. More times than not, everything will work itself out in the end...sometimes a No. 9 may topple a No. 8, but most of the time, the teams that deserve to be in the final eight will be there.

I don't know much about the women, but if they play the same type of unbalanced schedule, they should also let everyone in. It's not a statement of "let's give everyone a chance!"...it's more trying to accomodate for the tougher schedules that greet some teams in the unbalanced system.

The ODAC women also have eleven teams, but they play each other twice - once at home and once away - so it's a "balanced" 20-game schedule. They still have the 25-game regular-season limit, however, so this only leaves an opportunity to play five nonconference games.

donho · February 17, 2009, 10:07:23 AM

HSCfan,
I know the the current schedule sets up "easy vs. tuff " I just feel that just like in the tourney during the regular season the cream will get to the top, and the top eight will get in. I just do not see where one more game is going to change a season for any of the bottom three teams.

rmc1982 · February 17, 2009, 10:22:26 AM

Hasa-One question-I just looked at the Abegg projections for the NCAA tournament and there is no mention of the Quakers-there is a mention of RMC being a virtual lock but NOTHING on Guilford-whats up w/that? Does it have something to do with them leading the ODAC, because I saw a footnote that said something along the lines of there not being a mention of the current league leaders-Pat Coleman or Mr Yipsi help me here.....

Pat Coleman · February 17, 2009, 11:41:23 AM

He projects Guilford to win the ODAC. But they're the 21st team, three teams below the "who's next" list. Not a lock, obviously.

HSCfan · February 17, 2009, 11:47:40 AM

Hey donho,

I completely understand your point, and I as well believe that eventually the best teams will work themselves out. However, I can sympathize with the other side as well, especially since H-SC had one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, ODAC schedule this year:

Played R-MC (#1), GC (#2), RC (#3), EMU (#5), VWC (#6), and EHC (#9) twice...

BC (#4), W&L (#7), Randolph (#10), and LC (#11) once

Knowing this, I would think that if the Tigers finished, say 9th in the old system, and a team that perhaps played LC, Randolph, W&L and BC twice, and maybe R-MC, GC, and RC once scored wins over those teams with much worse records and slipped into the 8 spot, I may be a bit bitter at the fact that an easier schedule trumped a tougher one and an amount of "luck" through scheduling may have been a big factor.

This season, a team that played LC and Randolph twice, theoretically (!), got two guaranteed wins that H-SC did not.

Again, easy for me to say being a Tiger fan, and by no means am I trying to make excuses (we did lose to Randolph!!). However, if H-SC was No. 1 in the league right now playing the exact same schedule that they were handed in 2008-09, I would still be an advocate for letting all 11 teams in based on unbalanced scheduling.

One more game may not be a season changer, but it could give someone who was "slighted" by the unbalanced scheduling a bit of satisfaction, and perhaps some justification as to whether they do or don't belong.

Jacketlawyer · February 17, 2009, 11:59:37 AM

Quote from: tigerfanalso on February 16, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
HSCFAN

I can't make it Wed. nite (my oldest has a HS game). I'm putting you in charge of making sure the Tigers play their best game of the year. Win, lose or draw; if they play their best, thats all we can ask.

Go Tigers

Jacketlawyer, save travels from L'burg !!!!

Appreciate it! It'll be a very good game. BUt what I don't want is a repeat of last year. I'd rather take the loss on Wednesday rahter than wind up palying in the first round of the tournament and losing. Like last year.

hasanova · February 17, 2009, 12:55:31 PM

Quote from: rmc1982 on February 17, 2009, 10:22:26 AM
Hasa-One question-I just looked at the Abegg projections for the NCAA tournament and there is no mention of the Quakers-there is a mention of RMC being a virtual lock but NOTHING on Guilford-whats up w/that? Does it have something to do with them leading the ODAC, because I saw a footnote that said something along the lines of there not being a mention of the current league leaders-Pat Coleman or Mr Yipsi help me here.....

Yes, I looked at the Abegg piece myself ... twice, actually ... and also found it curious. The now 20th ranked and 19-4 Quakers were not mentioned even though they'd beaten RMC and still have a chance to win the ODAC outright (if RMC loses to HSC and GC wins its last two), be the #1 seed (if GC/RMC tie, GC's got the tie-breaker) and/or win the ODAC tournament. I just read Pat Coleman's explanation, but I would not have garnered that projection just from reading the story. In fact, to me, Guilford was conspicuous by its absence. So, yours is a good question that had definitely crossed my mind as well!

rmc1982 · February 17, 2009, 02:28:57 PM

Quote from: hasanova on February 17, 2009, 12:55:31 PM
Quote from: rmc1982 on February 17, 2009, 10:22:26 AM
Hasa-One question-I just looked at the Abegg projections for the NCAA tournament and there is no mention of the Quakers-there is a mention of RMC being a virtual lock but NOTHING on Guilford-whats up w/that? Does it have something to do with them leading the ODAC, because I saw a footnote that said something along the lines of there not being a mention of the current league leaders-Pat Coleman or Mr Yipsi help me here.....
Yes, I looked at the Abegg piece myself ... twice, actually ... and also found it curious. The now 20th ranked and 19-4 Quakers were not mentioned even though they'd beaten RMC and still have a chance to win the ODAC outright (if RMC loses to HSC and GC wins its last two), be the #1 seed (if GC/RMC tie, GC's got the tie-breaker) and/or win the ODAC tournament. I just read Pat Coleman's explanation, but I would not have garnered that projection just from reading the story. In fact, to me, Guilford was conspicuous by its absence. So, yours is a good question that had definitely crossed my mind as well!

Must be that EXCELLENT Randolph-Macon education I received to be so perceptive!!;)

sludge · February 17, 2009, 05:38:40 PM

RMC and McDaniel were in the Abegg list, yet both are ranked lower than Guilford, and both have been beaten by Guilford. So I don't get it. Not that it matters much.

I'll add it to the list life's mysteries.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh · February 17, 2009, 05:46:17 PM

sludge - look at the entire picture, not just the fact that Guilford beat both teams. RMC and McDaniel's resumes - their entire schedules - could be better than Guilford's.

McDaniel's SOS is 57; Guilford is 127; RMC's is 259
However, RMC only has two in-region losses (of their total of five) - that puts them ahead of Guilford in the eyes of the NCAA.

Also, Guilford's win over McDaniel doesn't even count in the eyes of the NCAA (or the algorithm Abegg came up with). They played... sure... just not a regional game!

All of that adds up initially to McDaniel and RMC being ranked ahead of Guilford.

Pat Coleman · February 17, 2009, 06:19:59 PM

Quote from: sludge on February 17, 2009, 05:38:40 PM
RMC and McDaniel were in the Abegg list, yet both are ranked lower than Guilford, and both have been beaten by Guilford. So I don't get it.

There are more than two games in a season.

sludge · February 17, 2009, 09:43:35 PM

Gotcha, so the top 25 rankings are based on a different set of data points than the regional rankings, if I understand correctly. That would easily explain it. At any rate, the thing is, to win the conference tournament.

hasanova · February 17, 2009, 10:09:32 PM

Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 17, 2009, 05:46:17 PM
sludge - look at the entire picture, not just the fact that Guilford beat both teams. RMC and McDaniel's resumes - their entire schedules - could be better than Guilford's.

McDaniel's SOS is 57; Guilford is 127; RMC's is 259
However, RMC only has two in-region losses (of their total of five) - that puts them ahead of Guilford in the eyes of the NCAA.

Also, Guilford's win over McDaniel doesn't even count in the eyes of the NCAA (or the algorithm Abegg came up with). They played... sure... just not a regional game!

All of that adds up initially to McDaniel and RMC being ranked ahead of Guilford.

So what's the value of playing a game outside your region? It looks as though the NCAA would be doing things to encourage, not discourage, interregional play. The NCAA values wins over Top 25 or winning programs in DI ... without regard to region ... what logic is there for treating DIII differently?

DIII is the only place you can be 19-4, ranked #20, one of the top two teams in a respected conference and still be worried about making the postseason! What's wrong with this picture?

Mr. Ypsi · February 17, 2009, 10:23:48 PM

It's not the 'evil' NCAA imposing a difference on d3; d3 itself has chosen to emphasize regional play. Personally, I don't like it, but I assume the rationale is to avoid unfairness to schools who can't afford the travel.