Great Lakes Region

[Fifth and Putnam]

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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

[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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?

[Fifth and Putnam]

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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?

Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?

Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.

Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.

[KnightSlappy]

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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?

Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.

Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.

I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.

[sac]

Great Lakes--Conference leaders, Pool C picture  (left out PSU-Behrend with a .435 SOS)


Record--team--W%/SOS--Games remaining against other leaders or PoolC's in parenthesis

AMCC
14-5  Medaille  .737/.461   (LaRoche 2/4)
15-5  LaRoche  .750/.482  (@Medaille 2/4)

HCAC
14-3  Hanover  .825/.532              (@MtStJoseph 2/15)
16-3  Mt. St. Joseph  .842/.513     (Hanover 2/15)
13-6  Anderson  .684/.505

MIAA
Hope 15-3    .833/.528   

NCAC
17-3  Denison    .850/.460    (Wooster  2/4)
14-6  Wooster   .700/.527     (@Denison 2/4, @Ohio Wes. 2/11, Wittenberg 2/18)
14-6  Ohio Wes.  .700/.510   (Wooster 2/11, @Wittenberg 2/15)
14-6  Wittenberg  .700/.478  (Ohio Wes. 2/15, @Wooster 2/18)

OAC
16-4  Marietta    .800/.599            (Ohio No. 2/18)
13-6  John Carroll    .686/.590       (Ohio No. 2/11)
13-7  Ohio No.    .650/.540           (@John Carroll 2/11, @Marietta 2/18)

PAC
15-4  St. Vincent   .784/.467     (@Thomas More 2/15)
13-6  Thomas More  .684/.510  (St. Vincent 2/15)


Great Lakes is going to end up with a lot of marginal Pool C teams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

The OAC did the double bye for 3 seasons (2012, 2013, 2014). Those were years when the OAC was only getting 1 team in the tournament so it didn't really end up doing a whole lot in terms of Pool C because the conference didn't have any contenders. I'm not 100% sure why the conference moved back away from it in 2015, but if I had to guess...It would be that the top seeds found it a disadvantage sitting while the other teams kept playing and didn't get rusty. All 3 seasons they did the double bye, the #1 seed was eliminated in the semifinals:

2012 Semis
#5 Wilmington defeated #1 John Carroll 79-74
#2 Capital defeated #6 Ohio Northern 66-61

2013 Semis
#2 Marietta defeated #3 Wilmington 111-106 (3OT)
#4 Mount Union defeated #1 Capital 63-59

2014 Semis
#3 Wilmington defeated #2 Marietta 91-82 (OT)
#5 John Carroll defeated #1 Mount Union 83-81

While I see that it did not happen, practically, would the theory be that your SOS could benefit from the byes?

Yes, I believe in theory your SOS would benefit as typically those first games in conference tournament play for top seeds are games against teams near the bottom of the conference.

Absolutely correct that you wouldn't hurt your SOS by playing sub-par teams. Thus why a suggestion to me from a former committee member is one I think I am going to push pretty hard... stop calculating the SOS after the regular season, before conference tournaments.

I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.

Eh... then what is the point of the tournament? Here is why I think this matters: the coaches are in control of their schedules. They are in control of who they play out of conference, especially. However, they are not in control of the conference tournaments and they aren't in control of a team tanking and having to now play them three times (in most conferences). I think the WL still matters. If a team gains two wins and a loss, I think that is important. However, a team may suffer in that 2-1 if they played two teams that dragged their SOS down and maybe below .500. Now suddenly that 2-1 matters none. Again, they don't control their opponents in that tournament.

If a team puts together a bad out-of-conference schedule, that is one them. Why are we then punishing them for something they can't control? Sure, they get a W that is easy that you are probably alluding to, but that is handled in the other criteria. It isn't an vRRO and the common opponent will probably not matter. The committee is also smart enough to know who their opponents are and not hurt them... but you can't escaped the SOS going down in that case.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

Yes, Denison is in trouble, but I do get a sense this committee is very aware and trying its best to not just automatically kill them for it. We shall see.

[sac]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

I don't think it will.  All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below.  A little help from semifinal and final.  Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.

Wash&Jeff is a huge drag,  Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.

[KnightSlappy]

I think if you're going to halt the SOS calculation you should also halt the WP adds too. Make NCAA tournament at-large decision on regular season only. I don't think you can count wins against 'easy' teams if you're not taking the SOS hit as well.

Eh... then what is the point of the tournament? Here is why I think this matters: the coaches are in control of their schedules. They are in control of who they play out of conference, especially. However, they are not in control of the conference tournaments and they aren't in control of a team tanking and having to now play them three times (in most conferences). I think the WL still matters. If a team gains two wins and a loss, I think that is important. However, a team may suffer in that 2-1 if they played two teams that dragged their SOS down and maybe below .500. Now suddenly that 2-1 matters none. Again, they don't control their opponents in that tournament.

If a team puts together a bad out-of-conference schedule, that is one them. Why are we then punishing them for something they can't control? Sure, they get a W that is easy that you are probably alluding to, but that is handled in the other criteria. It isn't an vRRO and the common opponent will probably not matter. The committee is also smart enough to know who their opponents are and not hurt them... but you can't escaped the SOS going down in that case.

The point of the tournament would be a chance to win the AQ.

Does making a win against Amherst count the same as a win against Earlham solve a problem or make it worse?

[ScotsFan]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

I don't think it will.  All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below.  A little help from semifinal and final.  Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.

Wash&Jeff is a huge drag,  Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.

All except one.  They host Wooster tomorrow. 

[sac]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

I don't think it will.  All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below.  A little help from semifinal and final.  Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.

Wash&Jeff is a huge drag,  Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.

All except one.  They host Wooster tomorrow.

In my advancing age I've developed an annoying habit of leaving out words I intended.   'After Saturday' of course.  No malice intended.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I didn't realize Denison's SOS was so low.  They're not going to get a Pool C if they don't get it up over .500.

I don't think it will.  All of their remaining opponents are currently below .500, first round NCAC also below.  A little help from semifinal and final.  Its actually better for their SOS if someone else hosts the NCAC tournament and they played the hosts.

Wash&Jeff is a huge drag,  Brooklyn, Mt. St. Vincent and Carnegie Mellon aren't going to provide much help either.

All except one.  They host Wooster tomorrow.

In my advancing age I've developed an annoying habit of leaving out words I intended.   'After Saturday' of course.  No malice intended.

Their SOS is so low, I think almost every game they play will help that (remember opponents' opponents' winning percentage is included in that number).  Allegheny is the only team left on their schedule that will likely drop their SOS at all.  Still, it's going to be tough to get to .500.

The regional rankings next week will be really telling, since the NJAC is having SOS trouble, too.  Will teams from traditionally strong conferences be forgiven for bad schedules?  We'll see.

[smedindy]

I think Denison just had bad luck with scheduling. With the NCAC being mediocre in the bottom, it doesn't help them. Denison's non-conference seems to be in line with what they usually played, and when they were around . 500 it didn't really matter.

I know there's criteria, but sometimes you can do all you can and it just happens that the SOS is a drag.