Great Lakes Region

[Flying Dutch Fan]

JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week.  Huge SOS difference.

Huge difference in record as well, .824 vs .667

[KnightSlappy]

JCU would easily be ahead of Hope if the rankings came out this week.  Huge SOS difference.

This is my thinking.  All other things (head-to-head, results versus regionally-ranked opponents, etc.) being, that .064 SOS difference between JCU and Hope has been considered equivalent to a 4-game difference in records (4 more wins & 4 fewer losses) in recent years.  That being said, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the regional committee has Hope ahead.

Two wins in a 25 game schedule is .080, and, as we all know, we've been told two wins is approximately equal to a .030 SOS gap.

It's not necessarily the case that .160 WP is equal to .060 SOS but it might be close.

Right now Hope has a 0.157 WP advantage and a .064 SOS deficit with the head-to-head victory. JCU would certainly not be "easily ahead" of Hope right now. I agree with those who think Hope would be placed ahead at the moment. If they're not ahead, it's a very slim margin indeed.

[sac]

and head-to-head losses by JCU to Mt. St. Joseph and Hanover.

They essentially have 4 losses vs the teams around them in the ranking  Hope, Hanover, Mt. St. Joseph, Marietta and one win Marietta.  I don't know how you put JCU ahead of any of those teams.  You can't ignore head-to-head like that.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.

[Fifth and Putnam]

I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.

Hanover and MSJ also have head to head wins over John Carroll as well. The Blue Streaks really may end up kicking themselves over the month of November if things don't fall their way down the stretch because they've been about as good any anybody in the region since then.

First 5 games: 1-4 (losses @MSJ, vs. Hanover (neutral court), vs. Hope, @ Muskingum)
Since then: 11-2 (losses @ Ohio Northern and @Marietta)

Goes to show that the games in November count just as much as they do in February.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I don't see JCU ahead of Hope. Not when Hope has a H2H victory, better winning percentage which when the .030 to 2-games guide kicks in all but wipes out the difference. I suspect JCU will be behind Hope and, honestly, maybe behind Hanover. If we extrapolate out the .030 to 2 to .060 to 4 (which the committees were doing last year)... Hanover's three loss different doesn't cover the four games... that may give Hanover the edge.

Hanover and MSJ also have head to head wins over John Carroll as well. The Blue Streaks really may end up kicking themselves over the month of November if things don't fall their way down the stretch because they've been about as good any anybody in the region since then.

First 5 games: 1-4 (losses @MSJ, vs. Hanover (neutral court), vs. Hope, @ Muskingum)
Since then: 11-2 (losses @ Ohio Northern and @Marietta)

Goes to show that the games in November count just as much as they do in February.

Exactly! LOL

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

We'll have to see.  It all depends on the committee.  Hope got dinged pretty good last year for a low SOS.  This is considerably better - maybe that will make a difference.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We'll have to see.  It all depends on the committee.  Hope got dinged pretty good last year for a low SOS.  This is considerably better - maybe that will make a difference.

This year's SOS is far better, though granted numbers are still going to fluctuate quite a bit.

[sac]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.

Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.

[sac]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.

Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.

Your're both missing the point that at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year.  It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.

Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.

Your're both missing the point that at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year.  It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)

But I don't agree... I think a .020 difference isn't nearly identical. That is a couple of opponents difference (KnightSlappy could be better at determining that). And it is closer to .030 bench-mark than to being the same. I don't believe it is nearly identical.

[fantastic50]

Pretty sure Hope's SOS is nearly identical to where it was a year ago at this same time.  No more than .15 better if even that.

Right, but around .500 last year vs around .520 actually makes a big difference, at least historically.

Especially when SOS numbers tend to trend downward as the season progresses and even further down for top-seeded teams in conference tournaments.

Your're both missing the point that at this point, on this date, Hope's SOS is nearly identical to last year.  It will sink to nearly the same point this year (for a different reason)

But I don't agree... I think a .020 difference isn't nearly identical. That is a couple of opponents difference (KnightSlappy could be better at determining that). And it is closer to .030 bench-mark than to being the same. I don't believe it is nearly identical.

Based on their remaining schedule, I am projecting that Hope's SOS will drop only to .524 (from .530) between now and the start of the MIAA tournament.   With no quarterfinal game, the tournament may not hurt Hope's SOS too much, either.  My thought is that they look quite solid at this point, even with a regular season loss and one in the conference tournament.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

The OAC Tournament, for a year or two, employed the double bye where the top 2 seeds got sent directly to the semifinals.  It allowed all 10 schools to make the tournament (they have since reverted to an 8 team, single elimination, traditional bracket). 

I assume that was beneficial from a Pool C perspective because, presumably, they could avoid playing one or two bottom dwellers that might hurt their SOS (in addition to having a better chance of winning the tournament or avoiding an upset due to the additional rest).  Is that a proper assumption?  A "math man", I am not.