NE Region General Questions

[AllStar]

Regional rankings yet again make little to no sense.  These things are useless.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well they aren't useless... it determines who makes the tournament when the final, fourth regional rankings are complete.

[GnacBballFan]

Dave a after a certain point SOS of schedule should only mean so much. No offense to east conn bc their fans are great on the boards and root for them as long as they aren't playing amc. But they've lost most of their games that makes their SOS strong. Including purchase who they lost to easily. A team albertus beat by 7. I understand SOS but at the same time I don't. What about Massey rating? Albertus is higher then most on their region. Better question, what is your northeast regional rankings Dave? We all respect you and your coverage, id love to hear your top 10

[GnacBballFan]

Regional rankings yet again make little to no sense.  These things are useless.

Can't say I disagree

[lildave678]

The only thing I can think of (and it doesn't include math, numbers, computers, whatever) is that the committee thinks along the lines of, "would a genuine sweet 16 team ever lose to someone like St Joe's of Maine by 20?" They think not obviously and while I'm a believer in AMC, I can't really blame them at this point, especially after a squeaker win over Anna Maria. If Albertus takes care of business I think they'll push up little by little. And like I said previously, this is already the highest they've been ranked in region publicly (don't know where they ended up 2 seasons ago in the final rankings).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

First of all, Massey means nothing just like the Top 25 means nothing in the eyes of the NCAA. Massey has his own way of figuring things out and he can't discount non-Division III games in his algorithm.

SOS has just as strong a position as the win/loss percentage. In fact, my source pointed out that the committees are really challenged by dealing with head-to-head versus entire resume questions... along with a gaudy record compared to a really low SOS. It isn't cut and dry, but to ignore the fact a team has a .468 SOS isn't fair to the team that has a .590.

Here is the deal, yes a team who has played a tough SOS and has more losses is probably going to be rewarded more... why? They have played a tougher schedule. If they were playing a weak schedule, they probably wouldn't have the same number of losses. You can't just say the team with a one-loss record by beating nearly every sisters-of-the-poor school is automatically better than a team that plays in a far better conference and challenges themselves out of the conference. That being said, there is a line and a team in the Northeast region with an SOS .578 SOS is not regionally ranked because they have 9 losses!

As for my top ten... I hadn't really thought about it because I wasn't really sure of the SOS numbers, but I probably would go like this:
1 - Amherst
2 - Williams
3 - Bowdoin
4 - Babson
5 - WPI
6 - Springfield
7 - Eastern Connecticut
8 - Albertus Magnus

And so on... of course, I am only doing this quickly and working with WP, SOS and some other basic info I happen to know or can look up quickly.

[7express]

Dave, I get the SOS argument, but as GNAC said if you lose all the games that pumped up that SOS (Carthage, Amherst & Purchase) what's the point??  I wouldn't cared if Albertus played 10 games against the Kansas school for the blind, 10 games against the Utah school for the deaf, and 5 games against Florida agricultural university, they're 19-1 against division 3 opponents AND have a win over Purchase while Eastern is only 16-5 vs. division 3 opponents and LOST to Purchase.  That should count for something.

[nescac1]

I think Albertus' VERY narrow road loss to a D1 team should count for SOMETHING -- I know that is not an "official" criteria, but when evaluating the true strength of a team, that, to me, signals that Albertus is more talented than some of the past Albertus teams and when on can probably play with other very good D3 teams.  I certainly think they deserved to be ranked a few spots higher ...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

It does count for something... but hard to outweigh a .091 different in SOS. That is a MONSTER difference that can't be ignored.

Remember, there isn't a formula that says one piece of data is more important than another... also the regional committees are allowed to consider who the teams are within reason. AMC has a very, very week SOS number. So weak that it screams the fact if they don't win their conference they are not making the NCAA tournament. That can't be ignored.

Remember also, next week vRRO comes into play and that could help AMC with their game against Purchase... or it may not help them at all because it will point out they are not playing anyone of any standing in their conference or their out of conference schedule.

Also remember, these rankings really mean nothing after this week. It will help with vRRO for next week, but after that they are meaningless. It is a base-line for everyone.

By the way, their game against a D1 school actually means NOTHING in the eyes of the NCAA unless we are looking at them for an at-large bid and they are into secondary criteria and then it only adds a loss to their record, nothing more. Playing a D1 team is nice for many reasons, but it means nothing when it comes to the NCAA.

[AllStar]

The eye test should be a big factor too.  To me it seems these rankings are based on numbers only.  Eye test should count for a little something too.  Often these rankings never seem all that accurate honestly.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

First of all, the eye test is not part of the criteria... but the regional committees are allowed to take into account what they know about the region, if a team is dealing with injuries, etc. if they think a result has something behind it. But again... eye test is not written into the criteria just as it isn't in Division I.

And how do you determine accurate? AMC has one loss on a SOS that would indicate if they were that good they would be undefeated. AMC's SOS would have teams like Amherst, Williams, etc. undefeated, would it not? Their SOS indicates if they played the schedules of any of the teams ahead of them, they would have more losses.

[GnacBballFan]

First of all, Massey means nothing just like the Top 25 means nothing in the eyes of the NCAA. Massey has his own way of figuring things out and he can't discount non-Division III games in his algorithm.

SOS has just as strong a position as the win/loss percentage. In fact, my source pointed out that the committees are really challenged by dealing with head-to-head versus entire resume questions... along with a gaudy record compared to a really low SOS. It isn't cut and dry, but to ignore the fact a team has a .468 SOS isn't fair to the team that has a .590.

Here is the deal, yes a team who has played a tough SOS and has more losses is probably going to be rewarded more... why? They have played a tougher schedule. If they were playing a weak schedule, they probably wouldn't have the same number of losses. You can't just say the team with a one-loss record by beating nearly every sisters-of-the-poor school is automatically better than a team that plays in a far better conference and challenges themselves out of the conference. That being said, there is a line and a team in the Northeast region with an SOS .578 SOS is not regionally ranked because they have 9 losses!

As for my top ten... I hadn't really thought about it because I wasn't really sure of the SOS numbers, but I probably would go like this:
1 - Amherst
2 - Williams
3 - Bowdoin
4 - Babson
5 - WPI
6 - Springfield
7 - Eastern Connecticut
8 - Albertus Magnus

And so on... of course, I am only doing this quickly and working with WP, SOS and some other basic info I happen to know or can look up quickly.

Well first things first, I never said Massey was in the process, nor did I imply. I'm bringing up Massey as a disagreeance with these rankings. As far as your top 10 regional rankings, I'm a little confused I guess. Albertus is ranked lower then teams you have them higher then in your top 25. I know the difference in the two, but wanted your personal rankings based off results and personal opinion. And I'm not trying to come off as an a$$, but I respectfully disagree with your rankings.

[NEHoopsFan99]

I have to say I agree with DMac. It would not be fair to the many other great teams in the northeast that took on challenging opponents to rank Albertus Magnus any higher. Yes they have a fantastic record. But that really means nothing when most of their wins are against the worst teams in the northeast. Now I'm not saying AMC isn't a solid team. They've certainly caught national attention for their clean record. But they're completely untested. If they were really trying to compete in region and make a run, why not schedule a harder non-conference? It's a shame teams like WPI and AMC have taken the easy road in the non-conference padding their record with meaningless wins. You gotta hand it to teams like Amherst, Williams, and Babson for taking on a much harder non-conference and pulling through relatively unscathed (not suggesting Babson is as good as Amherst but their tough schedule sure paid off for them). That's what great teams do. They're not afraid to play great teams because they know they can match up. Shouldn't we reward them for that? Yes E Connecticut is a bit of an outlier, but other than that, I think they've got the top right. And who says the NEWMAC is down this year? Aside from Wheaton and Coast Guard, all had a great non-conference showing. I'd say they're much deeper than years past even though WPI is arguably less strong without Coppola.

[GnacBballFan]

I have to say I agree with DMac. It would not be fair to the many other great teams in the northeast that took on challenging opponents to rank Albertus Magnus any higher. Yes they have a fantastic record. But that really means nothing when most of their wins are against the worst teams in the northeast. Now I'm not saying AMC isn't a solid team. They've certainly caught national attention for their clean record. But they're completely untested. If they were really trying to compete in region and make a run, why not schedule a harder non-conference? It's a shame teams like WPI and AMC have taken the easy road in the non-conference padding their record with meaningless wins. You gotta hand it to teams like Amherst, Williams, and Babson for taking on a much harder non-conference and pulling through relatively unscathed (not suggesting Babson is as good as Amherst but their tough schedule sure paid off for them). That's what great teams do. They're not afraid to play great teams because they know they can match up. Shouldn't we reward them for that? Yes E Connecticut is a bit of an outlier, but other than that, I think they've got the top right. And who says the NEWMAC is down this year? Aside from Wheaton and Coast Guard, all had a great non-conference showing. I'd say they're much deeper than years past even though WPI is arguably less strong without Coppola.

I don't think albertus goes into their schedule looking to pad it. In fact the reason their schedule is so weak is mainly bc their conference which they do not choose if course. Purchase was a top 15 team in the nation, they played Elms, central which is d1. They played an in state tourney to start the yr in which the host is one 1 in their conference. They use to play west conn every yr, not sure why that had stopped. But let's not think albertus pads their schedule. They just simply aren't in a good conference. I'm not saying albertus should be 1, or 2. Heckled is be ok with 5, but 8? I just disagree. And I disagree they pad their schedule as well, that to me is non sense

[GnacBballFan]

Awful typos, my apologies