MBB: NESCAC

nescac1 · February 19, 2015, 01:29:46 PM

Hausman has won two straight POTW awards in Nescac: when was the last time that happened in the regular season? I hope the Ephs have a plan for dealing with him ... unfortunately Williams has no one to handle Swords one-on-one, so Aronowitz (who I expect will get the assignment) will have a lot of the burden in man on man coverage ... can't afford to collapse and leave Swords free, ever.

Not Nescac related but a heartwarming D3 story -- worth a read:

http://www.outsports.com/2015/2/19/8046521/hunter-fromang-gay-randolph-macon

fanfromct · February 19, 2015, 01:35:40 PM

Back-to-back POTW - January last year - Toomey one week, and Toomey and Robinson shared it the next.

grabtherim · February 19, 2015, 01:45:35 PM

Fantastic story. I admire his courage, acknowledging those who came before him and his willingness to help others after him. Hopefully we are not too far from the day when this will not be newsworthy.

Quote from: nescac1 on February 19, 2015, 01:29:46 PM
Hausman has won two straight POTW awards in Nescac: when was the last time that happened in the regular season? I hope the Ephs have a plan for dealing with him ... unfortunately Williams has no one to handle Swords one-on-one, so Aronowitz (who I expect will get the assignment) will have a lot of the burden in man on man coverage ... can't afford to collapse and leave Swords free, ever.

Not Nescac related but a heartwarming D3 story -- worth a read:

http://www.outsports.com/2015/2/19/8046521/hunter-fromang-gay-randolph-macon

WPI89 · February 19, 2015, 01:53:34 PM

I realize I am wading into very deep water here.....but I just strongly feel that any system (mathematically or otherwise) - that has 3 NESCAC teams in the top 4 NE RR this year - is broken.

No sour grapes - WPI is is fine shape this year. And historically has benefited from this system more so than getting hosed by it.

While admittedly, I do not have a full understanding of the ranking criteria - I think at the very least the SOS component is inherently broken.

I think the committee has done a good job with the ranking based on the rules governing them.

And I really don't have a single team gripe (ie - Trinity needs to be lower and Magnus higher etc....) - I just think there is something inherintly biased that 3 teams from a down NESCAC are ahead of the pack.

Lastly - I do not mean subjectively - I just mean in terms of the statistics. Perhaps - the aspect of playing each other once only? Perhaps NESCAC coaches are better at scheduling non conference games. Teams that we deem soft but go on to winning records?

WPI having a decent to good non conference schedule should not be ruined because FDU has 1 win and Newbury has 3. Take the 2 games away - WPI would be 18-4 with the best SOS in the region - and likely 1 in the rankings.

Not sure how that makes sense?

grabtherim · February 19, 2015, 02:14:35 PM

In my opinion, you are 100% correct. I have been saying for weeks that I see our league getting one team, two at the absolute most to the dance.

Quote from: WPI89 on February 19, 2015, 01:53:34 PM
I realize I am wading into very deep water here.....but I just strongly feel that any system (mathematically or otherwise) - that has 3 NESCAC teams in the top 4 NE RR this year - is broken.

No sour grapes - WPI is is fine shape this year. And historically has benefited from this system more so than getting hosed by it.

While admittedly, I do not have a full understanding of the ranking criteria - I think at the very least the SOS component is inherently broken.

I think the committee has done a good job with the ranking based on the rules governing them.

And I really don't have a single team gripe (ie - Trinity needs to be lower and Magnus higher etc....) - I just think there is something inherintly biased that 3 teams from a down NESCAC are ahead of the pack.

Lastly - I do not mean subjectively - I just mean in terms of the statistics. Perhaps - the aspect of playing each other once only? Perhaps NESCAC coaches are better at scheduling non conference games. Teams that we deem soft but go on to winning records?

WPI having a decent to good non conference schedule should not be ruined because FDU has 1 win and Newbury has 3. Take the 2 games away - WPI would be 18-4 with the best SOS in the region - and likely 1 in the rankings.

Not sure how that makes sense?

nescac1 · February 19, 2015, 02:28:40 PM

Based on these rankings, I'd take the "over" on 1.5. Not saying that is necessarily correct, but that is what I anticipate -- I think Bates and Trinity will both make it so long as they win their first-round games, and if either makes the finals, they are nearly certainly in, especially if Babson wins NEWMAC. Amherst, with two more wins, is probably in too. Say, hypothetically, the semis are Bates, Trinity, Amherst, and Bowdoin. However that ultimately shakes down, there is a decent chance all FOUR could get in, especially if Amherst beats Trinity and Bowdoin ultimately gets the AQ. That would be ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than NEWMAC getting four in last season ...

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh · February 19, 2015, 02:30:06 PM

Here is the argument I head recently that finally made sense to me about the NESCAC... since they only play one-round of games (with six teams playing a second round against two other opponents), it allows NESCAC teams to schedule more out of conference games (five for example) than others AND because of the number of conference in the Northeast, they can play the top of some sub-par conferences which possibly over-inflates the OWP while not hurting them too much since the OOWP is only a third of the equation. As a result, you get a team like Bates who has a .619 SOS which anyone has followed Division III for a long time knows is a VERY large SOS. I would argue that number is a false SOS because it is too high.

Here is the problem that then creates... if the committees are using the .030 SOS difference equals two games theory (and they are from what I am seeing), then Bates can't be touched. No one is catch them. Every head-to-head comparison with WP% and SOS will go in Bates' favor. That is despite the fact Bates is 4-4 vRRO and others have better records (Babson 6-2, etc.). From what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

Now, one thought I have had to adjust to the over-inflated SOS numbers is instead of it being .030 to two games... have it be on a bell curve. (I only came up with this today, so bear with me if it isn't perfect). .030 to two games might work well say around the .520 SOS mark, but when it gets higher and lower of that line it needs to get tighter... maybe to the point where Bates is at is really .050 is worth two games (not perfect - I am just throwing out numbers). Maybe that will be a better split in understanding these gaudy SOS numbers. (By the way, .030 to two games doesn't automatically equate to .060 equaling four games - so maybe there is a little bit of a bell curve already in affect, the problem is there isn't a "line" as the SOS numbers get more drawn out).

Just a thought.

NEhoops · February 19, 2015, 02:37:40 PM

I agree that the league is "down", but that ultimately means there aren't 1 or 2 potential final four teams. However, there is still a case for having 2 or 3 very good NCAA tournament teams. WPI89, I can definitely see where you are coming from and the system isn't perfect. What would your rankings look like and why? What are ECSU and WPI best non league regional wins. It would be interesting to get some cross conference insight. Obliviously the W/L record of an opponent cant be controlled, but it is and always will be a basis for rankings.

I can definitely see how there was some support for Bates to stay number one based on the fact that their SOS is so high and they beat Babson head to head. Dave, I agree that Babson is 1 and Bates is almost 1A, both seemingly in the top tier by themselves.

P'bearfan · February 19, 2015, 02:51:42 PM

QuoteFrom what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

WPI89 · February 19, 2015, 02:54:24 PM

Quote from: NEhoops on February 19, 2015, 02:37:40 PM
I agree that the league is "down", but that ultimately means there aren't 1 or 2 potential final four teams. However, there is still a case for having 2 or 3 very good NCAA tournament teams. WPI89, I can definitely see where you are coming from and the system isn't perfect. What would your rankings look like and why? What are ECSU and WPI best non league regional wins. It would be interesting to get some cross conference insight. Obliviously the W/L record of an opponent cant be controlled, but it is and always will be a basis for rankings.

NE HOOPS - agreed. And yes - down year for the NESCAC means a very different thing than a down year for the rest of the Northeast.

WPI's best non-NEWMAC wins are Chicago, Williams, and Tufts.

The "weight" of the SOS in my opinion is silly. We were close this year and one year it will happen that the RR are just so egregious that the math has to change. If Magnus hadn't lost the one game - they very likely would be #1 in the country in the top 25 rankings. You just simply can not have a RR system (that really matters for pool 7) rank the number 1 team in the country 7 in the Northeast. Or 5 or whatever they would have been with 1 less loss and their awful SOS.

Bucket · February 19, 2015, 02:55:55 PM

Quote from: P'bearfan on February 19, 2015, 02:51:42 PM
QuoteFrom what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

Doesn't matter whether they lost by 1 or 101. The committee must use specific criteria when evaluating teams for regional rankings, and margin of victory/loss is not part of that criteria.

P'bearfan · February 19, 2015, 03:00:18 PM

Quote

Quote

From what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

Doesn't matter whether they lost by 1 or 101. The committee must use specific criteria when evaluating teams for regional rankings, and margin of victory/loss is not part of that criteria.

Then I can't think of a better example of why they need to change the criteria.

iwumichigander · February 19, 2015, 03:08:32 PM

Quote from: P'bearfan on February 19, 2015, 03:00:18 PM
Quote

Quote

From what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

Doesn't matter whether they lost by 1 or 101. The committee must use specific criteria when evaluating teams for regional rankings, and margin of victory/loss is not part of that criteria.

Then I can't think of a better example of why they need to change the criteria.

look at it this way - one week from now will most remember that Bates lost by 28 or just that Bates lost? Most on a committee will not know the level of detail you describe nor, in fairness, should they unless that minutia level of detail known on each and every team which is not practical.

booyakasha · February 19, 2015, 03:13:29 PM

Quote from: iwumichigander on February 19, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: P'bearfan on February 19, 2015, 03:00:18 PM
Quote

Quote

From what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

Doesn't matter whether they lost by 1 or 101. The committee must use specific criteria when evaluating teams for regional rankings, and margin of victory/loss is not part of that criteria.

Then I can't think of a better example of why they need to change the criteria.
look at it this way - one week from now will most remember that Bates lost by 28 or just that Bates lost? Most on a committee will not know the level of detail you describe nor, in fairness, should they unless that minutia level of detail known on each and every team which is not practical.

I agree with this; good explanation.

P'bearfan · February 19, 2015, 03:19:01 PM

Quote

Quote

Quote

From what I have gathered, there were some who argued Bates should stay as number one in the region this week.

There is no way that Bates should stay number one after losing by 28 points to Bowdoin last Friday night. That's completely indefensible.

If the Bobcats had lost by 1 point in OT that would be a different story. But's that's not what happened. They traveled 45 minutes to play their arch rival in the first game of a weekend series. All their players were available. If you're the number 1 team you don't lose like that.

Doesn't matter whether they lost by 1 or 101. The committee must use specific criteria when evaluating teams for regional rankings, and margin of victory/loss is not part of that criteria.

Then I can't think of a better example of why they need to change the criteria.

look at it this way - one week from now will most remember that Bates lost by 28 or just that Bates lost? Most on a committee will not know the level of detail you describe nor, in fairness, should they unless that minutia level of detail known on each and every team which is not practical.

Looking at point differential in wins and losses would be a statistical way of capturing this - without getting into the minutia.

More importantly, if you just pull back and look at the big picture - there's no way a team should remain #1 in it's region if they lose a region game that badly unless they're missing a couple of starters. Regardless of the criteria - it defies common sense.