Great Lakes Region

[Pat Coleman]

As a moderator, I'm not obliged to mitigate things for people when they are acting like trolls. And when Jim tried to mitigate things, you lashed out, probably assuming I had done it. Can't win.

[KnightSlappy]

(## column is RPI rank in the region)

RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   1.000   0.488   0.616   019   A      21-0    0-0   OAC      Marietta
GL   02   0.810   0.540   0.607   024   A      17-4    0-0   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   03   0.762   0.537   0.593   033   C      16-5    0-0   NCAC     Wooster
GL   04   0.706   0.546   0.586   040   C      12-5    0-0   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   06   0.700   0.541   0.581   048   A      14-6    0-0   PrAC     St. Vincent

I feel pretty good about the above as the top five. 6-7-8-9, I really have no idea. Hope, Mount Union, John Carroll, Penn State-Behrend, Calvin, and Medaille are the top candidates.

Hope has the head-to-head over Mount Union, and Mount Union has the head-to-head over John Carroll, so that order looks solid. Whether Penn State-Behrend slots in ahead of that group or behind (or somewhere in the middle), I don't know. SOS makes it look like they need to stay behind Mount Union.

Calvin has the 2-0 head-to-head advantage over Hope, so maybe you bump them in ahead of that trio, but Trine has the (1-gm) head-to-head over Calvin, so how far can you jump them?

GL   05   0.684   0.551   0.585   044   C      13-6    0-0   MIAA     Hope
GL   07   0.762   0.514   0.576   055   C      16-5    0-0   OAC      Mount Union
GL   08   0.750   0.506   0.567   073   C      15-5    0-0   OAC      John Carroll
GL   09   0.905   0.454   0.567   074   A      19-2    0-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
gl   11   0.750   0.497   0.560   084   C      15-5    0-0   AMCC     Medaille
gl   12   0.737   0.499   0.558   089   A      14-5    0-0   MIAA     Calvin

At least two of the above six will be left out. I took Bethany out of the group because I don't think the committee would rank a .619 WP above some of these resumes (and one common opponent data point slots them behind Calvin, say). Of the below group, I think Trine is the one who could make a surprise appearance in the rankings, but I don't think that's particularly likely.

gl   10   0.619   0.541   0.561   083   C      13-8    0-0   PrAC     Bethany
gl   13   0.700   0.505   0.553   096   C      14-6    0-0   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
gl   14   0.700   0.489   0.542   118   C      14-6    0-0   HCAC     Defiance
gl   15   0.556   0.537   0.542   120   C      10-8    0-0   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
gl   16   0.700   0.485   0.539   125   C      14-6    0-0   MIAA     Trine
gl   17   0.714   0.479   0.538   127   C      15-6    0-0   NCAC     DePauw
gl   18   0.714   0.479   0.537   128   C      15-6    0-0   PrAC     Thomas More
gl   19   0.750   0.463   0.535   133   A      15-5    0-0   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph

Way too early for this, but we may be looking at only one Pool C bid from this region, unless there are lots of upsets and some of those top teams don't grab the Pool A bids.

[sac]

No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.

I'm sure you're lingering so I'll lay it out for you.  On the d3hoopsville radio interview with the National Tournament chair a little over a week ago a question was asked about how you differentiate between teams with different records and different OWP numbers.  Part of that answer was something like a .030 difference in OWP is probably worth 2 wins, but a difference of .060 might not be worth 4.  So I simply remembered that answer and applying that knowledge to Marietta (unbeatean but OWP of .475) vs OWU and Case (3 or 4 more losses but OWP's of .564).  That's a difference of .090 OWP, so is that 6 wins, 5 wins, 4 wins? 

Using that question its easy to see how someone who's followed these rankings for awhile and has at least a little knowledge of how they work might look at Marietta's numbers and think a number one ranking might not be a slam dunk.  It was merely a statement of wondering out loud if Marietta would really be ranked #1.

Your reaction was frankly bizarre and over the top and it doesn't seem at any point did you even attempt to look at the criteria for regional rankings.


As far as you needing to be shown an unbeaten team not being ranked #1?  Well that's impossible to do because I don't think we've had a D3 make it unbeaten to the first regional ranking with such a poor OWP since we started doing it this way 8 years ago.  It simply hasn't happened so there is no precedent to refer to.

[monsoon]

WashU 95, Case 75

That's a big loss for CWRU.

[KnightSlappy]

No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.

We have at least seen something similar to this on the Women's side. Here are three sets from the same week in 2011.

Atlantic
1.   Kean   16-1   19-3
2.   Mount Saint Mary (New York)   18-2   18-2
3.   William Paterson 17-3   18-3
4.   Gallaudet   17-0   19-0
5.   Richard Stockton   14-6   15-7
6.   Baruch   16-3   17-3

Great Lakes
1.   Thomas More   20-0   21-0
2.   Hope   17-1   20-1
3.   Calvin   14-1   18-4
4.   Denison   19-0   21-0
5.   Hanover   18-1   19-1
6.   DePauw   14-1   18-3

Northeast
1.   Amherst   21-1   21-1
2.   Bowdoin   18-3   18-4
3.   Babson   19-0   21-0
4.   Colby   15-4   17-4
5.   Williams   17-3   19-3
6.   Western Connecticut 15-2   17-3
7.   Bates   15-5   17-6
8.   Southern Maine   14-5   14-7
9.   Eastern Connecticut 15-4   15-6
10.   Tufts   14-5   15-5

[sac]

Pitt-Bradford and Pitt-Greensburg drop out with their 10th D3 losses.  You can really see the logjam of teams with 5 and 6 losses.

Updated thru Wed 2/4
       
Marietta     21-0
Penn State-Behrend   19-2
------------------------.900

Ohio Wesleyan      17-4
------------------------.800

Wooster    16-5
Mount Union    16-5
John Carroll   15-5
Medaille    15-5
Mount St. Joseph    15-5
Hilbert    15-5
Calvin    14-5
Case Western Reserve   12-5
St. Vincent    14-6
Thomas More    14-6
Baldwin Wallace   14-6
Trine           14-6
Defiance    14-6
------------------------.700

Hope    13-6
DePauw   14-7
Bethany    14-8
Denison   13-8
------------------------.600

Wabash     10-7
Thiel    9-7
Anderson 11-9
Rose-Hulman   11-9
Transylvania 11-9
Carnegie Mellon   10-8
Albion     9-9
-----------------------------------.500


Next Week's Key Games:

Wednesday 2/11
John Carroll (15-5) @ Baldwin-Wallace (14-6)
Marietta (21-0) @ Mt. Union (16-5)
Wabash (10-7) @ Ohio Wesleyan (17-4)
Medaille (15-5) @ PSU-Behrend (19-2)

Friday 2/13
Case Western (12-5) @ New York U

Saturday 2/14
Marietta (21-0) @ John Carroll (15-5)
Denison (13-8) @ Wabash (10-7)
Trine (14-6) @ Calvin (14-5)
Transylvania (11-9) @ Defiance (14-6)

Sunday 2/15
Carnegie-Mellon (10-8) @ New York U.


Wednesday is a very big night for some teams in the Pool C fight particularly in the OAC.  Overall a big week for John Carroll.

[northb]

No one EVER made any kind of real case for why anyone should even consider the possibility that Marietta wouldn't be the top regional rank. "The criteria" is not a case. No one ever showed where an undefeated team with 20+ plus wins has been ranked behind a team with 4-5 losses. That 0 matters, because there's no baseline for who *can* beat an undefeated team, and so the SOS and all of that are basically irrelevant. Much different if a team has even 1 loss.

I'm sure you're lingering so I'll lay it out for you.  On the d3hoopsville radio interview with the National Tournament chair a little over a week ago a question was asked about how you differentiate between teams with different records and different OWP numbers.  Part of that answer was something like a .030 difference in OWP is probably worth 2 wins, but a difference of .060 might not be worth 4.  So I simply remembered that answer and applying that knowledge to Marietta (unbeatean but OWP of .475) vs OWU and Case (3 or 4 more losses but OWP's of .564).  That's a difference of .090 OWP, so is that 6 wins, 5 wins, 4 wins? 

Using that question its easy to see how someone who's followed these rankings for awhile and has at least a little knowledge of how they work might look at Marietta's numbers and think a number one ranking might not be a slam dunk.  It was merely a statement of wondering out loud if Marietta would really be ranked #1.

Your reaction was frankly bizarre and over the top and it doesn't seem at any point did you even attempt to look at the criteria for regional rankings.


As far as you needing to be shown an unbeaten team not being ranked #1?  Well that's impossible to do because I don't think we've had a D3 make it unbeaten to the first regional ranking with such a poor OWP since we started doing it this way 8 years ago.  It simply hasn't happened so there is no precedent to refer to.

Etta also seems to be just ignoring the criteria.  What his opinion is (and perhaps that of many others, since it entirely reasonable), is that Marietta is the best team in the region.  What the official rankings say must be done via the rankings.  He is wrong when he says that the criteria is not a case, unless he is referencing his (and others') opinion.  If he is referencing the official rankings, then he is just wrong, the criteria are the case.  And perhaps the committee will agree with his opinion, when they apply those criteria.  Or as has been posted, perhaps not.

[smedindy]

Facts do get in the way of closely held beliefs at times...

Just like when someone asserted a D3 head football coach made 350 large....

[sac]

For Pool C in this region it really comes down to 3 things that affect positioning in the final poll.....remembering all Pool C's will pick up a loss in conference tournaments

1.  What JCU and Mt. Union do this week and next.  JCU has 2 big games this week and both play Marietta.  They play each other the next week, winner likely getting the upper hand on the other.  Either team can strengthen their Pool C position significantly with a win over Marietta or fall further behind other worthy teams.

2.  What Medaille does against PSU-Behrend on Wednesday.  Six loss Medaille is in the pool c discussion with a chance, seven loss Medaille probably not.

3.  How they position the MIAA trio of Hope, Calvin, Trine, if at all.  Hope has a big OWP advantage over both but are just 1-3 head-to-head.  Trine beat Calvin.  All 3 have played likely region #2 OWU, Hope and Trine won, Calvin lost.  How they position them this week could be different next week after Trine plays at Calvin Saturday.


Lastly I'll add what the committee does with PSU-Behrend could be really big if they lose in their tournament.  Great record but a .432 OWP would be really low and could block a couple teams on the final day.

Does the committee favor win% or OWP, to what degree will be very key.  In any case Marietta's probably the only Pool C lock at the moment with OWU in really good position should they lose in their tournaments.  Everyone else is really on a bubble of some kind for Pool C.

[monsoon]

Pitt-Bradford and Pitt-Greensburg drop out with their 10th D3 losses.  You can really see the logjam of teams with 5 and 6 losses.

Updated thru Wed 2/4
       
Marietta     21-0
Penn State-Behrend   19-2
------------------------.900

Ohio Wesleyan      17-4
------------------------.800

Wooster    16-5
Mount Union    16-5
John Carroll   15-5
Medaille    15-5
Mount St. Joseph    15-5
Hilbert    15-5
Calvin    14-5
Case Western Reserve   12-5
St. Vincent    14-6
Thomas More    14-6
Baldwin Wallace   14-6
Trine           14-6
Defiance    14-6
------------------------.700

Hope    13-6
DePauw   14-7
Bethany    14-8
Denison   13-8
------------------------.600

Wabash     10-7
Thiel    9-7
Anderson 11-9
Rose-Hulman   11-9
Transylvania 11-9
Carnegie Mellon   10-8
Albion     9-9
-----------------------------------.500

sac: Can you remind me what the bold indicates? I used to know, and I'd rather not have to sort through the recent mess of this board looking for the answer.

Thanks!

[KnightSlappy]

Bold is teams with SOS greater than .500

[monsoon]

Bold is teams with SOS greater than .500

Thanks, KS!

[Pat Coleman]

For Pool C in this region it really comes down to 3 things that affect positioning in the final poll.....remembering all Pool C's will pick up a loss in conference tournaments

Usually not something we have to really consider in the Great Lakes but remember that Case doesn't *have* to pick up another loss to be in Pool C.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Sheesh... I walk away for a couple of days.. where's the popcorn?

Couple of things... first regional rankings are nice to look at but ultimately they mean nothing. We get a sense of what the committees might be thinking and accessing, but we won't get a better sense until Week 2 when we see trends. And of course with once-ranked, always-ranked out the window... Week 1 is informative at best.

Secondly, vRRO will not be a factor in the first week. Impossible to have that data when there are no rankings in the first place.

Thirdly, Marietta is probably the best team in the region... they are not necessarily the best criteria team. While we haven't seen a precedent, Cabrini in the past has been close to being in Marietta's shoes and we all saw how Cabrini slide behind Scranton (2 losses) when they suffered their first loss of the season last year. They eventually got back to number one which goes back to my first point... the first rankings are informative... it's those last rankings that matter and I can't wait to see... oh never mind.

Fourthly, I am not sure Marietta won't be ranked #1... but I have looked at those criteria pretty in-depth and an argument could be had to slot them behind Ohio Wesleyan based on the .030 SOS to two games comparison. We are going to see that a few times I think in Week 1 (Dickinson and JHU and others).

Finally, Marietta has been invited to next year's Hoopsville Classic... we await word on whether they can make it work with their schedule.

[Titan Q]

Regarding undefeated Marietta, maybe not a perfect example, but one that came to mind for me - St. Norbert last year in the Midwest.

2014, Midwest regional ranking #3 (Feb 26)
1   Washington U.   22-2   22-2
2   Illinois Wesleyan   22-3   22-3
3   Wheaton (Ill.)   17-8   17-8
4   Augustana   19-6   19-6
5   St. Norbert   21-1   22-1
6   Carthage   15-8   16-9
7   Rose-Hulman   20-5   20-5
8   Chicago   14-9   15-9

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3

(St. Norbert's loss was to UW-Whitewater, the #2-ranked team from the West region.)