Great Lakes Region

[sac]

Here's the "slash lines"(win pct./SOS/RRO's) of last weeks ranked teams and the next likely ranking candidates.  The RRO's are using last weeks rankings.   Should Mt. Union drop out reduce an RRO win for JCU, 2 RRO wins for Marietta, should Trine drop out reduce both Alma and Hope RRO's by two wins.


1.  John Carroll        21-2     .913/.524/2-1
2.  Marietta             21-2      .913/.561/5-1      (add RRO loss if St. Vincent is ranked, add RRO win if MSJ is ranked)
3.  Ohio Wesleyan   20-3     .870/.532/4-2
4.  Hope                  19-1      .950/.517/3-1
5.  Alma                   18-5      .783/.567/5-4
6.  Wooster             16-6      .727/.576/2-4
7.  Mt. Union           14-7      .667/.545/1-5   ---does not count last nights loss to Muskingum
8.  Hiram                 17-5       .773/.494/2-2
9   Trine                  14-8       .636/.538/0-5

St. Vincent              15-7       .682/.476/0-1
PSU-Behrend          19-2       .905/.419/0-0
Hilbert                     18-4       .818/.420/0-0
Mt. St. Joseph         15-7       .682/.476/0-1
Wittenberg             14-9        .609/.509/1-4
Baldwin-Wallace     14-9        .609/.510/1-5
Albion                     11-9        .555/.550/1-6

Mt. Union and Trine would be in position to drop out of the poll, but I really don't see two obvious teams to replace them.  It comes down to taking teams with great records and poor SOS, over teams with ok records and good SOS.  I just don't see any of the 7 teams not ranked last week as "yeah they should be ranked teams."

The poll will probably look something like this
1.  Marietta for sure
2.  JCU or Hope
3.  JCU or Hope or OWU
4.  Hope or OWU or Alma
5.  Hope or Alma
6.  Wooster
7.  Hiram
8.  Trine or St. Vincent or MSJ or PSU-Behrend or Mt. Union
9.  Trine or St. Vincent or MSJ or Mt. Union or PSU Behrend

[sac]

Official rankings

1. Marietta
2. John Carroll
3. Ohio Wesleyan
4. Alma
5. Hope
6. Wooster
7. Hiram
8. Mt. Union
9. St. Vincent

Not sure if this page is a work in progress, the Great Lakes has been updated but as of 1:15 the date stamp hasn't been changed.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0


They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked.  So some obvious errors here.

The obvious thing to notice is that they appear to place a very high value on RRO's, not sure I agree Alma's criteria is better than Hope's.  Hurray for double counting!!!

[Fifth and Putnam]

I'm shocked that Hope is 5th...I would have made the case that they could have been #2.

[Hopester]

They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked.  So some obvious errors here.

Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?

[sac]

Just a reminder that Mt. Union lost to Muskingum on Monday, they are now 14-8 and would not have been included in this weeks rankings (probably!).   Only data through Sunday counts towards this weeks rankings.

[EttaFan1]

They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked.  So some obvious errors here.

Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?

That is the way it has been in baseball for a few years.

[KnightSlappy]

They list Alma's RRO's as 5-4 and Hope at 3-1, that could only happen if they count Trine as ranked.  So some obvious errors here.

Isn't it once ranked always ranked now?

That is the way it has been in baseball for a few years.

It is not once ranked always ranked, but the data sheets are generated before the new rankings and are not updated after the new rankings come out.

[KnightSlappy]

Spots 2-5 must be really bunched up right now. Probably not a lot to choose between those teams.

[fantastic50]

Wednesday night
1. Marietta  (def. Otterbein)
2. John Carroll (lost to #8 Mt. Union)
3. Ohio Wesleyan (def. Oberlin)
4. Alma (lost to Albion)
5. Hope (def. Kalamazoo)
6. Wooster (def. Allegheny)
7. Hiram (lost to Denison)
8. Mt. Union (def. #2 John Carroll)
9. St. Vincent (def. Thiel)

[sac]

Feels like the Regional and National committee's kind of deserved those results. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.

Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.

One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.

[Mr. Ypsi]

We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.

Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.

One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.

And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors!  (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying.  And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)

[sac]

I wouldn't mind an explanation for these two ranking things.


4.  Alma          18-5         .783/.556/5-4
5.  Hope          19-1         .950/.517/3-1


9.  St. Vincent  15-7         .739/.457/1-1
UR Trine           14-8         .636/.522/0-5

In both cases you have one team with a significant win% advantage, and the other with a significant SOS advantage (in the case of Trine even more so).  RRO's also are a similar difference with the team with the better SOS having a decent advantage.

Yet we seem to be treating these two comparisons differently?

I'm really at a loss here, I know things changed after last night but this looks like another instance where the criteria isn't being applied the same.  Is St. Vincent's one single win back in December over Marietta really enough to be the difference in how the criteria is interpreted?  What of St. Vincent's bad losses to Waynesburg and Calvin?  Don't those cancel that out?

I don't really understand this.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.

Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.

One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.

And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors!  (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying.  And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)

To be honest... it isn't even the NCAA's decision. The NCAA as a whole will do whatever it's membership wants. But each and every year, the national committee chairs for all Division III sports gather and one of the topics they always vote on (after debate) is whether they want to release the date - that vote has always favored not releasing the data.

Yes, the men's committee and others (football for example) have pushed for changing this policy and they have not been successful. What is disappointing is I was under the impression the number of those against it were the majority, but maybe losing ground including the women's committee who were now pushing for public information. That changed apparently this year. The women's committee has said publicly they are against it and it turns out this year's national meeting resulted in a vast majority against releasing the data.

The problem is... they are scared and basing it on fear. They don't want to have coaches coming after them pissed off because they think their team deserved to be in the tournament and think they got screwed. They probably have completely bogus reasons and don't understand the criteria, but that doesn't stop them... and as a result it keeps those committees from wanting to "show their work." Furthermore, from what I have been told, when there are coaching committees like the NABC who work hard to work with the national committee to not only communicate what they think works and why. The NABC also educates the coaches about how it works AND work as a conduit between the coaches and the committee to communicate. The WBCA does not have that relationship, or it is just starting to grow better, and it shows.

Unfortunately, a compromise I was told had traction didn't work out. One idea brought up at the last national meeting was allow whomever wanted to release the rankings to do so... and allow those who don't want to release them not do it as well. It didn't pass for whatever reason. Amazingly, when I ask for reasons for these things I get run arounds from anyone who doesn't want to release the data. Those who do, walk carefully as to not anger those they disagree with.

[Mr. Ypsi]

^^^Yeah, as expected - and totally pathetic.

Those who WANT to do the right and open thing bowing to those who are scared s**tless of being open and transparent.  And too friggin' stupid to realize that openness is the ONLY effective weapon against coaches who 'think' they got screwed.  I was proud to spend a career as an educator.  Educators can often cure 'ignorant', but we can't cure 'stupid'.