NE Region General Questions

[Bucket]

This week games are done!

Lots of great action in all leagues; as we come down to the final week of the regular season for some leagues and preparing for the conference tournament in other leagues.. I thought I would have fun (no more football on Sundays; Go Giants!) and give my predictions for Wednesday's Regional Rankings....

Northeast

1.   Amherst
2.   MIT
3.   Middlebury
4.   Albertus Magnus
5.   Keene State
6.   Western Connecticut
7.   Wesleyan
8.   Rhode Island College
9.   Eastern Connecticut
10.   WPI
11.   Becker
12.   Tufts

Do you use the formula the committee uses to assess rankings or are you just placing teams where you think they should be?

[pjunito]

No formula; just my own opinion.

[WPI89]

I think the first 4 are well placed - meaning, that may be who I would bet on if there was a mini-NE tourney to decide how they were ranked.  That being said - I can't see how MIT or Magnus could possibly jump that much?

[7express]

my thoughts:

1) Amherst
2) Middlebury
3) West Conn
4) MIT
5) RIC
6) WPI
7) Keene
8) Wesleyan
9) Eastern
10) Albertus
11) Becker
12) Tufts

No formula, just my opinion.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It used to be that winning percentage was a much higher factor in the rankings (not per statute, but in actuality).  This year there seems to be much more wiggle room for including the schedule measurements in the decision.

Personally, I prefer complaining about a good team with a lower winning percentage being left too low than I do trying to justify why a team with a good record against weak competition should be higher.

As much as it breeds some unfairness, I prefer a system in which the teams that win are rewarded.

I have Albertus Magnus at #4 in NE in my current estimation - quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.

The tournament will be interesting, I just hope a poor strength of schedule doesn't keep any deserving teams out of it.

[Bucket]

quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.

I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.

Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.

[walzy31]

I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:

8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.

Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.

Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.

To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.

[Hugenerd]

Amherst jumps to 2 in the new poll, with 1 first place vote.  MIT jumps Middlebury to the #3 spot, also with 1 first place vote. Middlebury checks in at #4 in the country.

http://d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/week11

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.

I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.

Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.

I'm not saying Albertus is better than Middlebury, simply that Albertus seems to be playing better than they did early in the season, while Middlebury doesn't seem to be as strong as they were.

That's why we have playoffs.

[pjunito]

quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.

I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.

Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.

They both won by double digits; I don't think it proves that one team is vastly superior over another. I think Midd is a great team. The trinity/Albertus game had no flow to it... Albertus went to the line 44 times. Trinity had no answer for Albertus size and quickness. Albertus could have scored 100 in that game, if not for "smart" fouls by Trinity, preventing fast breaks and easy put backs. Albertus is a very athletic team and I think a lot of teams will not want to see them in the first round of the NCAA if they make it.

[Bucket]

quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.

I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.

Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.

They both won by double digits; I don't think it proves that one team is vastly superior over another. I think Midd is a great team. The trinity/Albertus game had no flow to it... Albertus went to the line 44 times. Trinity had no answer for Albertus size and quickness. Albertus could have scored 100 in that game, if not for "smart" fouls by Trinity, preventing fast breaks and easy put backs. Albertus is a very athletic team and I think a lot of teams will not want to see them in the first round of the NCAA if they make it.

I agree. That's why I was finding fault with the assertion that one team was rising and the other was showing fatigue.

[WPI89]

Walzy - best explanation of the process I have ever read - thanks.

That being said - I can't see MIT being any kind of blocker as described.  The number 2 team in the country could not possibly sit on the table for an extended period of time no matter what SOS is supposed to represent in the decision process.

I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:

8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.

Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.

Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.

To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.

[WPI89]

Meant to write number 3 - sorry.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:

8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.

Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.

Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.

To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.

Just one thing to be mentioned.  It's not one person doing the regional rankings.  There is a committee with specific criteria - the same way the selection committee has specific criteria.  They're not supposed to let personal feelings about how good/bad teams actually are affect the rankings.

This year is incredibly surprising because usually the win/loss record is the major determinitive factor.  It just doesn't seem to be that way this year - at least not in the NE.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Win/Loss percentage is an important but can easily be out-weighed by a weak SOS... resulting in those voting to think... sure they have one loss... their SOS is in the bottom half of the region.

Just a thought.