WBB: Landmark Conference

[Pat Coleman]

There's a Top 25 board with a lot of intelligent discussion about the poll. Maybe try there. Here's a sample:

Biggest vote gainers
+80, Bethel, beat Carleton (.353 WP, 118th NCAA SOS), beat Hamline (.688 WP, 232nd NCAA SOS)
+79, Whitman, beat Whitworth (.545 WP, 250 NCAA SOS), beat Linfield (.500 WP, 103 NCAA SOS)
+67, Trinity TX, beat Texas Lutheran (.375 WP, 252 NCAA SOS), beat Southwestern (.250 WP, 152 NCAA SOS)
+45, Chicago, beat NYU (.813 WP, 15 NCAA SOS), beat Brandeis (.750 WP, 43 NCAA SOS) WOW, great week!
+42, Transylvania, beat Mt. St. Joseph (.294 WP, 348 NCAA SOS), beat Anderson (.267 WP, 256 NCAA SOS)  Not sure how you look at Chicago's week and Transylvania's week and think they deserve the same number more votes. (granted, Chicago's % increase in votes is much higher)
+34, Oglethorpe, beat Millsaps (.450 WP, 265 NCAA SOS), beat Birmingham Southern (.650 WP, 266 NCAA SOS)
+33, UW-LaCrosse, beat UW-Stout (.647 WP, 87 NCAA SOS), beat UW-Eau Claire (.588 WP, 20 NCAA SOS)
+28, Mary Hardin-Baylor
+27, St. Thomas
+19, John Carroll
+18, DePauw
+10, Simpson

Biggest vote losers
-110, Amherst, beat Williams (.737 WP, 12 NCAA SOS), lost at Hamilton (.667 WP, 48 NCAA SOS)
-86, Baldwin Wallace, lost at John Carroll (.882 WP, 204 NCAA SOS), beat Marietta (.471 WP, 22 NCAA SOS)
-75, Loras, beat Coe (.588 WP, 86 NCAA SOS), lost to Luther (.563 WP, 9 NCAA SOS)
-66, UW-Whitewater
-66, Wartburg
-15, Misericordia
-14, Illinois Wesleyan
-11, Cortland
-11, Pacific
-10, Austin

Amherst lost 21% of their votes.
Bethel gained 21% of their votes.

I would definitely still argue that the optics of a loss drop teams a LOT in the poll. And that a large reason teams increase in votes is merely because others are dropping because of losses. Which absolutely means that winning twice against meh teams is treated better than winning once against a good team and losing once to a "good to meh" team on the road.

I feel like if Whitman and BW started the week with the same number of votes, and Whitman beat Linfield, and BW lost to John Carroll, that I wouldn't move them at all. Is that putting too much stock in "having merely played a good team?"

As a thought experiment, I bet most would say that losing to the #1 team is better than (i.e. you should gain votes in the polls relative to) beating the worst team.  At some point though, you'd switch. What's your line?  Off the top of my head losing to a top 100 team == beating a bottom 250 team. I bet everyone's would differ.

[Rofrog]

Pat one other thing about final fours.I think Scranton leads in most appearance in final fours also 10,plus how many time they appeared in the Tournament (Ncaa)also.So Scranton has a rich history in women and mens basketball.I know you would like to think d3 basketball started when your program started but it started way before that!

[Pat Coleman]

Pat one other thing about final fours.I think Scranton leads in most appearance in final fours also 10,plus how many time they appeared in the Tournament (Ncaa)also.So Scranton has a rich history in women and mens basketball.I know you would like to think d3 basketball started when your program started but it started way before that!

Sure. But those games are not really relevant to a modern Top 25 voter. One appearance in the last 13 Final Fours is more relevant. One in the last four, compared to three for Amherst, an even tighter time frame.

And, really, I don't like to think that at all. You don't need to put words in my mouth. I've made tens of thousands of posts -- feel free to stick with the words I've actually said.

Here's the actual data. Women's final four appearances, Division III history:
Washington U. 10
Scranton 9
Amherst 8
St. Thomas 7
I think after that, we have Capital and Hope with 5 apiece.

[Rofrog]

No Pat they had Ten final fours!I believe one  was with The AIAW which became NCAA!

[Pat Coleman]

OK -- we'll add the AIAW one from pre-1982 to the list.

If that's all you have to add and no further reaction to the number of facts presented here, I think we're done.

[Rofrog]

Pat I asked Gordon since he was the voter fron the ladies side.All I wanted to know and first I got my first answer from Ryan how many games have you watched of the last Royals or nescac compared to landmark he never answered it he asked that same question to me I'm not a voter he is!So never heard an answer which is very odd coming from a voter in the top 25!The question I asked was directed at Gordon since I know Gordon handles the women.So my question was directed toward him until you and Ryan added to it.But I still didnt get my answer besides well new coach and this dont hold water or Amherst has been there before so i rebuttled it with Scrantons 10 apperances and probably the most Ncaa apperance also(I only brought that up because of that argument that had nothing to do to explain the 200pts difference)  my Question is for Gordon how does a team with 3 losses lose 397 pts and others with the same losses lose197that is 200 pts different it is not like Scranton lost to a 6-11 team they have a winning record.Why the 200 pt difference.It is a legit question?But I understand if you have no answer!

[Pat Coleman]

I am also a women's Top 25 voter and ran both polls for about 20 years, but we will make sure Gordon answers your question.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

rofrog - I already know the reading comprehension is not 100% because you haven't been able to actually read what Pat is telling you, but I find the following hysterical:

How many games have you watched of Amherst? Of the rest of the NESCAC? Of Wartburg, or Loras, or UWW, or the rest of the nation?

Followed by:

Ryan I watch alot I've been following the game since 1978.Ive been following the Royals men and women since then I missed one final four of the mens and one of the womens.I guess you couldn't answer the question so you asked me.Yes I watch alot of games thanks to d3hoops see back in the days we would have to look at the paper just to get scores so yes we are spoiled with Pat's d3hoops program!

Your inability to focus on what the replies are to you... along with who they are from ... plus understanding the world of Division III basketball actually revolves well outside of Scranton ... is causing me to basically start to ignore your thoughts. You refuse to realize that the past you keep drumming on from Scranton is a LONG time ago and that they aren't the best of the best. They are good, but at some point you need to realize the final fours you are holding on to happened a long, long time ago. And if you don't think what happened last year should matter, you should drop the Scranton past as well ... especially when you keep using it as a barometer but wish the past not to be used for others. It doesn't work that way.

[gordonmann]

Okay, let's try to answer this question with some numbers.

First, let's see if Scranton is getting treated more harshly than other teams.

We have five teams that were ranked in the Top 10 in the first week of the poll and now have three losses. Here's how many votes those teams have lost since Week 1.

* Amherst: From #1 (611 points) to #3 (405 points), which is 206 points.
* Scranton: From #3 (568 points) to #16 (221 points), which is 347 points
* St. Thomas: From #6 (499 points) to #17 (215 points), which is 284 points
* Mary Hardin-Baylor: From #7 (394 points) to #13 (324 points), which is 70 points
* Wartburg: From #8 (393 points) to #10 (389 points), which is 4 points

A couple of these teams picked up their three losses early in the season, as compared to Amherst and Wartburg who just took their third loss. So let's look at each team's lowest point in the poll and how many points they lost.

* Amherst: Lowest point is right now. Maximum point loss is 206
* Scranton: Lowest point was last week. Maximum point loss is 350 points
* St. Thomas: Lowest point was a few weeks ago. Maximum point loss is 369
* Mary Hardin-Baylor: Lowest point was a few weeks ago. Maximum point loss was 148.
* Wartburg: Lowest point is right now. Maximum point loss is 4.

Scranton and St. Thomas are being hit harder for their losses. Amherst has taken less of a hit, Mary Hardin-Baylor less and Warburg virtually none. Here are a few theories on why:

* Where you start matters: It's certainly possible that a 3-loss team is the 10th best team in the country, but it's not likely they are the first or third best team in the country. So starting higher up has put Amherst and Scranton in a position to lose more votes than, say, Wartburg.

* When you lose matters: Mary Hardin-Baylor and St. Thomas took their third loss a couple weeks ago, so they've had time to pick up some wins and move back up the poll. If Scranton keeps winning, they probably do the same.

* Clustering of losses matters: Scranton had  a stretch where it lost 3 out of 5 games and those games were played over almost three weeks (two polls). So the optics to voters was really bad. "This team keeps losing games. Maybe they aren't that good?" If they follow Scranton closely -- and some of our voters see them multiple times throughout the season -- they might have even noticed the game where the Royals benched their starting lineup (W over Moravian). People on the boards here liked that move. Voters might view it as a sign that something is going poorly behind the scenes.

Same thing happened to St. Thomas, which lost a bunch of games in a cluster. St. Thomas also lost its best player to injury, I believe for the season. Again, some of our voters see St. Thomas in person or on film multiple times a year. They know losing Kaia Porter changes them totally and so a third loss is much more damaging.

Compare that to Wartburg or Amherst whose losses are spread out, haven't had that major injury and (in Amherst's case) have used the same starting lineup most of the year. It's easier as a voter to write off one loss as a fluke or a bad day in those situations.

* Who beats you matters: I actually agree that Scranton's losses are not much worse in aggregate than Amherst's. George Fox is a good team, though not as good as Tufts. But I would take E'town over Emmanuel and Catholic over Hamilton on a neutral court.

But here's the counter intuitive part, which is what I call the tethering effect.

Amherst's close loss to Tufts tethers them to the Jumbos who are No. 1 in the country. "Well, if Amherst only lost by 2 in OT to Tufts, they should be ranked close together." Amherst doesn't get tethered to Emmanuel or Hamilton because those teams aren't on anyone's ballot. So no one is saying, "I have to keep Amherst and Hamilton close together because of that head-to-head result."

You would think that Scranton would get the same benefit because E'Town isn't on anyone's ballot and Catholic is only on a couple. But George Fox is on almost everyone's ballot and they've also fallen far down the rankings. The Bruins lost a bunch of games (3 in 6 games) and they needed to rally to avoid losing a four last Friday. They've slipped all the way to No. 21 in the poll, but are still on most people's ballots.

So the voter looks at Scranton (lost a bunch of games in a group), looks at George Fox (lost a bunch of games in a group), remembers that George Fox beat Scranton and decides, "Hm. Well, I can't separate them too much. Let's keep Scranton in the high teens or low 20s.

St. Thomas has the same problem. They lost to Augsburg and Gustavus Adolphus who have since taken additional losses themselves. The three teams hover around each other and that probably doesn't change until one of them beats Bethel and separates themselves (or Bethel goes on a losing streak and all four group together).

The really, really weird outlier here? It's Wartburg.

They don't have any recent history of NCAA Tournament excellence to the same degree Amherst does. Two of their losses are good (Simpson, Loras) and one is now meh (UW-Platteville). But what Warburg does have is big wins over other ranked teams -- two over UW-Lax and an utter butt-kicking of Baldwin Wallace. So they get the benefit of spread out losses where Scranton doesn't. It's best win is over DeSales (on a few ballots) and Misericordia (on no ballots).

For what it's worthy, I'm actually with Rofrog on this.

I think Amherst is overrated at No. 8. I've watched them play in person and online a couple times, this year and in the past. They have two great players, a couple players who rely on a good night shooting threes, and not much of note coming off the bench on offense. And they have their usual stellar defense which will keep them in every game, even if they shoot poorly against a tough team.

But I don't think they are a Top 10 team. I have them in the teens on my ballot.

[Rofrog]

Thanks Gordon Dave I think you dont know what your talking about.Like i said you
guys couldnt explain it so you went from this to that to the new coaching.So rule of thumb before you say I dont get it Dave look in the mirror because your Guru that does your top 25 called you all out.So i will wait for
smiles from all 3 of you.Gordon thanks again you understood!

[Rofrog]

Dave maybe just maybe instead of jumping the gun read my question.I never said d3 revolves around Scranton but they do have one hell of a program.But according to Ryan,Pat and you d3 does revolve around Amherst and it showed again the ignorance that my question was putting  down your beloved Amherst team when in reality Gordon understood and came out with the answer and again Thanks Gordon for really answering my question!Im.owed smites hehehe

[Pat Coleman]

It doesn't revolve around Amherst, but seven Final Fours in 10 years speaks volumes.

This discussion shows quite well exactly why we have 25 voters -- you just saw four people without a unanimous opinion. That's what makes polling work.

[Rofrog]

Gordon-explained it well and with that I respect how he votes in the Top 25!

[ronk]

Okay, let's try to answer this question with some numbers.

First, let's see if Scranton is getting treated more harshly than other teams.

We have five teams that were ranked in the Top 10 in the first week of the poll and now have three losses. Here's how many votes those teams have lost since Week 1.

* Amherst: From #1 (611 points) to #3 (405 points), which is 206 points.
* Scranton: From #3 (568 points) to #16 (221 points), which is 347 points
* St. Thomas: From #6 (499 points) to #17 (215 points), which is 284 points
* Mary Hardin-Baylor: From #7 (394 points) to #13 (324 points), which is 70 points
* Wartburg: From #8 (393 points) to #10 (389 points), which is 4 points

A couple of these teams picked up their three losses early in the season, as compared to Amherst and Wartburg who just took their third loss. So let's look at each team's lowest point in the poll and how many points they lost.

* Amherst: Lowest point is right now. Maximum point loss is 206
* Scranton: Lowest point was last week. Maximum point loss is 350 points
* St. Thomas: Lowest point was a few weeks ago. Maximum point loss is 369
* Mary Hardin-Baylor: Lowest point was a few weeks ago. Maximum point loss was 148.
* Wartburg: Lowest point is right now. Maximum point loss is 4.

Scranton and St. Thomas are being hit harder for their losses. Amherst has taken less of a hit, Mary Hardin-Baylor less and Warburg virtually none. Here are a few theories on why:

* Where you start matters: It's certainly possible that a 3-loss team is the 10th best team in the country, but it's not likely they are the first or third best team in the country. So starting higher up has put Amherst and Scranton in a position to lose more votes than, say, Wartburg.

* When you lose matters: Mary Hardin-Baylor and St. Thomas took their third loss a couple weeks ago, so they've had time to pick up some wins and move back up the poll. If Scranton keeps winning, they probably do the same.

* Clustering of losses matters: Scranton had  a stretch where it lost 3 out of 5 games and those games were played over almost three weeks (two polls). So the optics to voters was really bad. "This team keeps losing games. Maybe they aren't that good?" If they follow Scranton closely -- and some of our voters see them multiple times throughout the season -- they might have even noticed the game where the Royals benched their starting lineup (W over Moravian). People on the boards here liked that move. Voters might view it as a sign that something is going poorly behind the scenes.

Same thing happened to St. Thomas, which lost a bunch of games in a cluster. St. Thomas also lost its best player to injury, I believe for the season. Again, some of our voters see St. Thomas in person or on film multiple times a year. They know losing Kaia Porter changes them totally and so a third loss is much more damaging.

Compare that to Wartburg or Amherst whose losses are spread out, haven't had that major injury and (in Amherst's case) have used the same starting lineup most of the year. It's easier as a voter to write off one loss as a fluke or a bad day in those situations.

* Who beats you matters: I actually agree that Scranton's losses are not much worse in aggregate than Amherst's. George Fox is a good team, though not as good as Tufts. But I would take E'town over Emmanuel and Catholic over Hamilton on a neutral court.

But here's the counter intuitive part, which is what I call the tethering effect.

Amherst's close loss to Tufts tethers them to the Jumbos who are No. 1 in the country. "Well, if Amherst only lost by 2 in OT to Tufts, they should be ranked close together." Amherst doesn't get tethered to Emmanuel or Hamilton because those teams aren't on anyone's ballot. So no one is saying, "I have to keep Amherst and Hamilton close together because of that head-to-head result."

You would think that Scranton would get the same benefit because E'Town isn't on anyone's ballot and Catholic is only on a couple. But George Fox is on almost everyone's ballot and they've also fallen far down the rankings. The Bruins lost a bunch of games (3 in 6 games) and they needed to rally to avoid losing a four last Friday. They've slipped all the way to No. 21 in the poll, but are still on most people's ballots.

So the voter looks at Scranton (lost a bunch of games in a group), looks at George Fox (lost a bunch of games in a group), remembers that George Fox beat Scranton and decides, "Hm. Well, I can't separate them too much. Let's keep Scranton in the high teens or low 20s.

St. Thomas has the same problem. They lost to Augsburg and Gustavus Adolphus who have since taken additional losses themselves. The three teams hover around each other and that probably doesn't change until one of them beats Bethel and separates themselves (or Bethel goes on a losing streak and all four group together).

The really, really weird outlier here? It's Wartburg.

They don't have any recent history of NCAA Tournament excellence to the same degree Amherst does. Two of their losses are good (Simpson, Loras) and one is now meh (UW-Platteville). But what Warburg does have is big wins over other ranked teams -- two over UW-Lax and an utter butt-kicking of Baldwin Wallace. So they get the benefit of spread out losses where Scranton doesn't. It's best win is over DeSales (on a few ballots) and Misericordia (on no ballots).

For what it's worthy, I'm actually with Rofrog on this.

I think Amherst is overrated at No. 8. I've watched them play in person and online a couple times, this year and in the past. They have two great players, a couple players who rely on a good night shooting threes, and not much of note coming off the bench on offense. And they have their usual stellar defense which will keep them in every game, even if they shoot poorly against a tough team.

But I don't think they are a Top 10 team. I have them in the teens on my ballot.

Gordon,
  Excellent and thorough analysis! I don't remember such being presented at this time(pre-regional rankings/seedings/hosting) in the season in the past. Should the question come up in other regions, at least u can replicate your response "around the nation".

[Baldini]

Dave maybe just maybe instead of jumping the gun read my question.I never said d3 revolves around Scranton but they do have one hell of a program.But according to Ryan,Pat and you d3 does revolve around Amherst and it showed again the ignorance that my question was putting  down your beloved Amherst team when in reality Gordon understood and came out with the answer and again Thanks Gordon for really answering my question!Im.owed smites hehehe

I'm guessing as a youth that in the comment section of your report cards read 'Doesn't play well with others'.