MBB: Landmark Conference

[NEPAFAN]

- both teams played in conferences that didn't help - or have helped in recent years. The bottom of these conferences have teams (like Goucher) who have struggled to put solid seasons together. Some of those teams also have poor schedules for whatever reason so OWP's and OOWP's are pretty lousy at the bottom.


Sorry for the long post... I will keep my thoughts shorter in the future.

This is where I am lost. Look at the bottom of the CSAC; 4 total wins outside of their conference. This can't be worse then the Landmark.

Baptist Bible College                    5-13   0.278   7-18   0.280
Rosemont College                            5-13   0.278   7-18   0.280
Philadelphia Biblical University    0-18   0.000   0-24   0.000

Then look at the middle of the pack in the CSAC:


Marywood University *    9-9   0.500   13-13   0.500
Immaculata University *    8-10   0.444   10-16   0.385
Centenary College            7-11   0.389   9-16           0.360

Hardly impressive.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

NEPA - something gave Cabrini better numbers...

[NEPAFAN]

NEPA - something gave Cabrini better numbers...

Yeah, what exactly?

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

the good thing about landmark fans is that they are not sheep.  theres always shades of grey in what gets spewed from the NCAA, and they are intelligent enough not to sit and take what the ncaa gives them without friendly and healthy debate. 

The original discussion was not a bash cabrini discussion, it was very much trying to figure out how you have 3 teams with similar resumes yet one hosts a pod and the other two are sent into very hostile environments, especially when you look that Cabrini didnt beat any RRT ooc and lost to scranton. 

[Pat Coleman]

Out of conference regionally ranked teams isn't a criterion, though. That's far more subjective a breakdown than the committee makes. If you're trying to figure out how the NCAA deals with teams you need to use the criteria they use and not make up other ones.

Even if they make sense.

For example, I'd like to use wins against teams over .500.
I'd like to use road wins against teams over .500.
I'd like to use late-season performance.
I'd like to use an RPI measurement.

But the NCAA doesn't in any meaningful way, so it's a waste of time to throw those out as reasons.

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

And how are the numbers overinflated? They are numbers. Based on a team's Opponents Winning Percentage... the Opponents Opponents Winning Percentage... a team's in-region record... and their SOS which is a math formula based on 2/3 weighting of the OWP and 1/3 weighting of the OOWP that have already been affected by the multiplier.

The problem both Scranton and F&M had with their numbers were the following:
- both played a large number of home games thus not getting the benefit of the multiplier for neutral (1.0) or away (1.4) games. (I do know that Scranton lost the Vegas tournament, which didn't help their situation. I was looking forward to seeing Scranton there, so I was also disappointed.)
- both teams played in conferences that didn't help - or have helped in recent years. The bottom of these conferences have teams (like Goucher) who have struggled to put solid seasons together. Some of those teams also have poor schedules for whatever reason so OWP's and OOWP's are pretty lousy at the bottom.
- both teams did NOT take advantage of away games and win, thus lowering their in-region losses (i.e. Scranton's weekend at MMA and Drew and F&M against teams like McDaniel). If you don't have a lot of away games and are already taking a hit as a result, losing unnecessary games will compound the problem.

there is no mathematical formula to compute regional ranking.  Theres just a set of criteria, we have no idea what weight is given to each.  the third criteria being head to head in region games (ie scranton vs cabrini).  Your point about road wins is invalid.  Scranton and FM both won games on the road.  We have no idea if they wouldve won those games if their overal regional ranking would be any better as the only thing that wouldve been effected would be Winning %.  The biggest problem for F&M and Scranton is that they each played a couple of out of conference regional games against horrendous teams, which canceled out games against teams better than cabrini faced. 

[saratoga]

Two days of very healthy debate and what do I get for it...I end up booking a room in Williamstown.
I understand to a degree where Pat & Dave are coming from but I honestly & firmly believe the arguments presented by Lusty, NEPA, Augie, Ronk and some others are equally as valid.
I've said it before, there is way too much emphasis placed on Regional rankings (when convienient) and far too little time ever making sure those rankings even make sense or are adjusted to reflect accuracy in a timely fashion.
Therefore, in my quest to ensure the NCAA can not make back room deals with old friends or lack common sense or good judgement any longer, I am proposing that effective for the 2012 National Tournament and beyond, both Scranton & F&M will become designated "hosts" and thereby eliminate the mass confusion associated with making sense out of senseless decisions.
Henceforth, teams coming into the Scranton/F&M pods will be "diverse geographically", preference will be given to the newest members of D-III that have never experienced the tourney previously and at least two (2) teams in each pod will have at least nine (9) losses as demonstrated by this years pods being held at Cabrini & WPI.
I think we can also make assurances that these two sites will pack Mayser & the Long Center to the tune of 3,000 per game instead of playing in front of 427 that may be the high mark at many of the current locations.
I have also received assurances from the Scranton Athletic Dept. that all games at the Long Center will be televised by ESPN U. This late breaking development just happened with an agreement between ESPN Board Chair & UofS Alum John Walsh and my brother.
Lastly, this change was approved by Coach's Robinson & Danzig & it works for me.
Finally, common sense prevails.

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

COSIGN!!

[saratoga]

That's all I needed. We're a go!

[ronk]

Great idea and who be ur brother? John A was a classmate of mine.

[NEPAFAN]

Anybody have thoughts on how the Royals match up with Becker?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

And how are the numbers overinflated? They are numbers. Based on a team's Opponents Winning Percentage... the Opponents Opponents Winning Percentage... a team's in-region record... and their SOS which is a math formula based on 2/3 weighting of the OWP and 1/3 weighting of the OOWP that have already been affected by the multiplier.

The problem both Scranton and F&M had with their numbers were the following:
- both played a large number of home games thus not getting the benefit of the multiplier for neutral (1.0) or away (1.4) games. (I do know that Scranton lost the Vegas tournament, which didn't help their situation. I was looking forward to seeing Scranton there, so I was also disappointed.)
- both teams played in conferences that didn't help - or have helped in recent years. The bottom of these conferences have teams (like Goucher) who have struggled to put solid seasons together. Some of those teams also have poor schedules for whatever reason so OWP's and OOWP's are pretty lousy at the bottom.
- both teams did NOT take advantage of away games and win, thus lowering their in-region losses (i.e. Scranton's weekend at MMA and Drew and F&M against teams like McDaniel). If you don't have a lot of away games and are already taking a hit as a result, losing unnecessary games will compound the problem.

there is no mathematical formula to compute regional ranking.  Theres just a set of criteria, we have no idea what weight is given to each.  the third criteria being head to head in region games (ie scranton vs cabrini).  Your point about road wins is invalid.  Scranton and FM both won games on the road.  We have no idea if they wouldve won those games if their overal regional ranking would be any better as the only thing that wouldve been effected would be Winning %.  The biggest problem for F&M and Scranton is that they each played a couple of out of conference regional games against horrendous teams, which canceled out games against teams better than cabrini faced. 

Lusty - they would have fewer in-region losses... leading to better regional records... and examples like La Roche would show they would be higher in the regional rankings. But with more losses (i.e. losses on the road to teams like McDaniel), teams are lower in the regional rankings.

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

And how are the numbers overinflated? They are numbers. Based on a team's Opponents Winning Percentage... the Opponents Opponents Winning Percentage... a team's in-region record... and their SOS which is a math formula based on 2/3 weighting of the OWP and 1/3 weighting of the OOWP that have already been affected by the multiplier.

The problem both Scranton and F&M had with their numbers were the following:
- both played a large number of home games thus not getting the benefit of the multiplier for neutral (1.0) or away (1.4) games. (I do know that Scranton lost the Vegas tournament, which didn't help their situation. I was looking forward to seeing Scranton there, so I was also disappointed.)
- both teams played in conferences that didn't help - or have helped in recent years. The bottom of these conferences have teams (like Goucher) who have struggled to put solid seasons together. Some of those teams also have poor schedules for whatever reason so OWP's and OOWP's are pretty lousy at the bottom.
- both teams did NOT take advantage of away games and win, thus lowering their in-region losses (i.e. Scranton's weekend at MMA and Drew and F&M against teams like McDaniel). If you don't have a lot of away games and are already taking a hit as a result, losing unnecessary games will compound the problem.

there is no mathematical formula to compute regional ranking.  Theres just a set of criteria, we have no idea what weight is given to each.  the third criteria being head to head in region games (ie scranton vs cabrini).  Your point about road wins is invalid.  Scranton and FM both won games on the road.  We have no idea if they wouldve won those games if their overal regional ranking would be any better as the only thing that wouldve been effected would be Winning %.  The biggest problem for F&M and Scranton is that they each played a couple of out of conference regional games against horrendous teams, which canceled out games against teams better than cabrini faced. 

Lusty - they would have fewer in-region losses... leading to better regional records... and examples like La Roche would show they would be higher in the regional rankings. But with more losses (i.e. losses on the road to teams like McDaniel), teams are lower in the regional rankings.

DMac, for 3 weeks now you have beaten a dead horse that F&M's losses to McDaniel and Muhlenburg cost them.  But look at the regional criteria, the only thing winning those games wouldve done is improve their winning %.  lets say they won both, now up to 88%.  their owp, oowp, and in region results vs ranked teams wouldnt have changed at all.  They finished 5th in region, but without a formula, its impossible to know how they wouldve been ranked.  Same with scranton

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

Anybody have thoughts on how the Royals match up with Becker?

my stats are showing Becker likes to play an up-tempo game to mask a weak offense compared to other tournament teams.  They are abysmal from the foul line.  Their strength however is their defensive prowess (as discussed earlier on this board).  Scranton would be wise to create a chippy game and not get lured into a running game (unless it has the athletes to do so).  How is scrantons depth, is it enough to generate lots of fouls?

[NEPAFAN]

Anybody have thoughts on how the Royals match up with Becker?

my stats are showing Becker likes to play an up-tempo game to mask a weak offense compared to other tournament teams.  They are abysmal from the foul line.  Their strength however is their defensive prowess (as discussed earlier on this board).  Scranton would be wise to create a chippy game and not get lured into a running game (unless it has the athletes to do so).  How is scrantons depth, is it enough to generate lots of fouls?

The best 8-9 game: Becker vs. Scranton. Becker hasn't played the toughest of schedule but has done well against it with a 23-4 record. Two of their wins against tournament teams came before D.J. Exum was injured. Scranton's two recent trips to the tournament resulted in one-and-outs against teams that then lost their next game.