Great Lakes Region

[sac]

The fact they still have Hope ahead of St. Vincent is significant.  I guess.

You almost knew it was going to happen but it's weird to see Mount Union ahead of JCU in these rankings. 

Of course the question is now, how far does Mt. Union fall losing to JCU.  They were behind Hope before Hope lost last week, now MtU. lost.

Hope is not totally out of the Pool C picture from this region, they would need JCU to probably lose twice and Case to lose at least once.  Hope could easily end up the 2nd team from this region at the table if tournaments went chalk.

The problem will be Hope's criteria won't match-up well nationally (mostly win%) and would be a long shot to grab one of the final two spots.  It would be highly dependent on Pool A upsets and that's a bridge a little too far I'm afraid.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

To be honest, the region might need to be careful with Hope. Put them up too high, they could block other teams from getting in. Hard to read with 10 days left in the season... but could be worth watching in that region.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Dave:

It seems at this point, Marietta is locked in as a Pool C team in the event that they fail to win the OAC tournament.  In short, they are going to the tournament.  However, should 'Etta win the OAC tournament/A berth, are there realistic opportunities for either Mount or JCU to get an at-large berth in they lose in the semi or the final (and barring suffering an upset on Saturday) next week?  It would seem so.

[sac]

Outside of Wooster though the Great Lakes doesn't have great C candidates and even Wooster is iffy if Pool A upsets go the wrong way.

[sac]

Dave:

It seems at this point, Marietta is locked in as a Pool C team in the event that they fail to win the OAC tournament.  In short, they are going to the tournament.  However, should 'Etta win the OAC tournament/A berth, are there realistic opportunities for either Mount or JCU to get an at-large berth in they lose in the semi or the final (and barring suffering an upset on Saturday) next week?  It would seem so.

JCU and Mt.U seem to be on the outside looking in at this point.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

That's how I see it, too.  To much needs to happen to position themselves for a Pool C. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah... I think Marietta appears to be safe, but they need to keep winning as well. Can't lay down right now. The worry I have is their SOS is .512 through Sunday and that is in what I consider the danger area. They are 4-2 vRRO and that would improve if they face JCU or MU in the tournament... as will their SOS, slightly. They certainly aren't in the danger of Staten Island last year, or Albertus Magnus this year, where their SOS is so poor it is going to kill their chances. However, they take another loss and drop in the rankings, then you need to be worried.

As for another pick from the NCAC... the resumes aren't great, but I wouldn't be surprised if another NCAC team got in... however, as previously noted, it will depend on how many upsets take place in conference tournaments. The bubble is already very sensitive... it will get very precarious when upsets take place (and you know, upsets are going to take place this year).

[KnightSlappy]

Marietta is pretty close to being a lock. They probably don't want to lose to Ohio Northern and then get bounced in the opening game of the OAC Tournament, but leaving that possibility aside they're probably in.

Similar for Wooster and Ohio Wesleyan. If they can both win their final game and first tournament game, they're probably both in as well.

No one else in the GL is close to safe. In fact, I doubt anyone else will garner much Pool C consideration.

[sac]

Using your chart,  Louisiana College is being blocked by Hardin-Simmons and Case Western is blocked by Mt. Union/John Carroll.  Only two I could find that are top 19 but blocked by rankings. 

Doing it the way the NCAA would do it, without upsets I had Mt. Union as the 19th Pool C.

Final table was
Brooklyn
NYU
Northeast #12  - unlikely to be picked but maybe
Franklin and Marshall
Hardin-Simmons
Chapman
Central Region #9  -def. would not be picked
Mt. Union.

Its really a toss up when you get to this point.

Selected in order
Bates
Whitewater
Emory
Washington
William Patterson
Amherst
Dickenson
Wooster
North Central
Elmhurst
Illinois Wesleyan
Va. Wesleyan
WPI
Bowdoin
Springfield
St. Olaf
Dubuque
Whitman
Rhode Island
Mt. Union.



I doubt the CCIW gets 4, so still one vacant slot, but truthfully right now the 4th CCIW team is looking ok.  If they don't get a 4th then Chapman, NYU and John Carroll would get a look.

[sac]

To be honest, the region might need to be careful with Hope. Put them up too high, they could block other teams from getting in. Hard to read with 10 days left in the season... but could be worth watching in that region.

Its not blocking if Hope has the better criteria. They actually have very solid criteria including a couple solid head-to-head wins in this region against OWU and Mt.Union, other head-to-head others only back those up.   They have 1 more loss than they needed and that's really it.



(wrong quote earlier, sorry)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Remember... when it comes to the national decisions... head-to-heads are going to mean nothing. Head-to-heads are great for in-region discussions and rankings, but the chances Hope is sitting at the table against another team they played as far slimmer.

[sac]

Remember... when it comes to the national decisions... head-to-heads are going to mean nothing. Head-to-heads are great for in-region discussions and rankings, but the chances Hope is sitting at the table against another team they played as far slimmer.

Isn't that what you were discussing when you mentioned Hope as a "blocking team" in this region.  That would be discussing regional rankings which makes head-to-heads very relevant.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

What I am trying to say is you are using head-to-head as the criteria to move them into a position higher in the poll where it seems you believe they will be. You seem to use head-to-head to make your case as stating they have better criteria.

What I am trying to say is head-to-head may be nice in the region, but the committee both regionally and nationally is going to look at more than that criteria. Hope's SOS is .552 and falling, they are 2-5 vRRO (not great), and are the Mendoza line of .667 WP%. I don't think head-to-head will trump those last two numbers to be sure and if the Great Lakes Region puts them ahead of teams because of head-to-head than they will block the rest of the region from getting an at-large... because head-to-head won't help when they get to the national table.

Yes, head-to-head matters in region and I think it is used to help break ties amongst teams, but if that is the criteria that gives Hope the edge... I believe the committee needs to consider not having that be the only reason Hope is higher than someone else. (I hope that makes sense... I have been talking so much regional stuff today I am getting a bit fried).

[sac]

What I am trying to say is you are using head-to-head as the criteria to move them into a position higher in the poll where it seems you believe they will be. You seem to use head-to-head to make your case as stating they have better criteria.

What I am trying to say is head-to-head may be nice in the region, but the committee both regionally and nationally is going to look at more than that criteria. Hope's SOS is .552 and falling, they are 2-5 vRRO (not great), and are the Mendoza line of .667 WP%. I don't think head-to-head will trump those last two numbers to be sure and if the Great Lakes Region puts them ahead of teams because of head-to-head than they will block the rest of the region from getting an at-large... because head-to-head won't help when they get to the national table.

Yes, head-to-head matters in region and I think it is used to help break ties amongst teams, but if that is the criteria that gives Hope the edge... I believe the committee needs to consider not having that be the only reason Hope is higher than someone else. (I hope that makes sense... I have been talking so much regional stuff today I am getting a bit fried).

Honestly, you frequently seem to have trouble understanding anything I post.


I posted this earlier, I think I make my points on Hope pretty clear Dave.

The fact they still have Hope ahead of St. Vincent is significant.  I guess.

You almost knew it was going to happen but it's weird to see Mount Union ahead of JCU in these rankings. 

Of course the question is now, how far does Mt. Union fall losing to JCU.  They were behind Hope before Hope lost last week, now MtU. lost.

Hope is not totally out of the Pool C picture from this region, they would need JCU to probably lose twice and Case to lose at least once.  Hope could easily end up the 2nd team from this region at the table if tournaments went chalk.

The problem will be Hope's criteria won't match-up well nationally (mostly win%) and would be a long shot to grab one of the final two spots.  It would be highly dependent on Pool A upsets and that's a bridge a little too far I'm afraid.

Hope's head-to-head win over Mt. Union is in fact very significant(and their OWU win).  Hope was ahead of Mt. Union last week and both have now lost since (Mt. Union last night, obviously not included in this weeks poll)  Hope would not be blocking anyone if the above scenario played out.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I understand sac... I was basing my thought on the head-to-head comment. There is a lot in play.

I will say this... .667 WL% will probably eliminate Hope from being an at-large team. I have been basically told as much... just as I have heard from others that teams below .500 in SOS probably won't get in either. Just some extra information for people to ponder.