Great Lakes Region

[sac]

--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6  13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6  12-6
11. Calvin 11-11  8-4

All 4 of these teams need to win out and reach the semi-finals of their respective conference tournaments to get above the .700 threshold.

--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9  8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6

These 3 teams cannot reach .700 without winning their conference tournament (which would make them Pool A)......all 3 would need to reach the conference Championship to have any Pool C prayer and it would be slim for each of them at best.  (Olivet would be .684 win%, and I assume a pretty strong RPI)


All the teams above .800 could lose 2 games and still remain above the .700 mark (including 1 loss in their conference tournament.)

[KnightSlappy]

--------------------------------------.700
8. John Carroll 15-6  13-6
8. Bethany 13-6 13-6
10. Capital 14-6  12-6
11. Calvin 11-11  8-4

All 4 of these teams need to win out and reach the semi-finals of their respective conference tournaments to get above the .700 threshold.

--------------------------------------.600
12. Olivet 11-10 7-5
13. Albion 12-9  8-6
14. Adrian 10-10 6-6

These 3 teams cannot reach .700 without winning their conference tournament (which would make them Pool A)......all 3 would need to reach the conference Championship to have any Pool C prayer and it would be slim for each of them at best.  (Olivet would be .684 win%, and I assume a pretty strong RPI)


All the teams above .800 could lose 2 games and still remain above the .700 mark (including 1 loss in their conference tournament.)

Olivet would see a benefit if John Carroll can find a way to get ranked. If (big IF) Olivet did win out until the MIAA championship I think they'd have a decent case (considering their low percentage). They'll have a sky high SOS, but the secondary criteria won't do them any favors. Still a very long shot if everything goes their way, but there is a chance.

[KnightSlappy]

I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.

Top 4 should remain the same.

[ScotsFan]

I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.

Top 4 should remain the same.

Personally, I don't think Theil gets in above Witt.  I think they deserve to knock PSU-B out of the rankings, but that's about it for me.  Thiel has only one win vs. a regionally ranked opponent (LaRoche) and their losses are all, what I would consider, bad in-region losses.  Witt on the other hand has a win over GL #3 Wabash and one of their 3 in-region losses is to GL #1 Wooster.  I just don't see enough from Thiel to justify them jumping Witt this week. 

[KnightSlappy]

I think Thiel gets ranked this week, pushing out either Witt or PSU-B. I have a hard time justifying them any lower than 5th.

Top 4 should remain the same.

Personally, I don't think Theil gets in above Witt.  I think they deserve to knock PSU-B out of the rankings, but that's about it for me.  Thiel has only one win vs. a regionally ranked opponent (LaRoche) and their losses are all, what I would consider, bad in-region losses.  Witt on the other hand has a win over GL #3 Wabash and one of their 3 in-region losses is to GL #1 Wooster.  I just don't see enough from Thiel to justify them jumping Witt this week. 

Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.

[ScotsFan]

Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.

I can't recall where I read it, and I may just be making this up, but I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere about how the committee puts more weight into games vs. regionally ranked opponents (win or lose) over games with non-ranked regional opponents.  For example, Team A, with a 1-1 record vs. regionally ranked opponents might be looked at equally as favorable as Team B with a 1-0 because of the fact that Team A has played 2 games vs. regionally ranked opponents as opposed to just the 1 game Team B has played.  Would this not mean that a loss to a regionally ranked opponent (i.e. Witt's loss to Wooster) would be looked at more favorably than a loss to a non-ranked regional opponent (i.e. Thiel's loss to Allegheny)?

[KnightSlappy]

Bad losses never come into play in the criteria.

I can't recall where I read it, and I may just be making this up, but I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere about how the committee puts more weight into games vs. regionally ranked opponents (win or lose) over games with non-ranked regional opponents.  For example, Team A, with a 1-1 record vs. regionally ranked opponents might be looked at equally as favorable as Team B with a 1-0 because of the fact that Team A has played 2 games vs. regionally ranked opponents as opposed to just the 1 game Team B has played.  Would this not mean that a loss to a regionally ranked opponent (i.e. Witt's loss to Wooster) would be looked at more favorably than a loss to a non-ranked regional opponent (i.e. Thiel's loss to Allegheny)?

Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.

If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.

[wally_wabash]

The language in the handbook that you're looking for is (emphasis added) "in-region results versus regionally ranked teams".  There's room for different interpretations of what that means with respect to how a RAC or the national selection committee wants to view such games.  There is no such language about non-ranked teams.  

Ultimately, I think it's wise to pay more attention to results, particularly wins, against ranked opponents.  If you're on the Pool C bubble, we already know that you can lose otherwise you wouldn't be on the bubble.  If I'm passing out invites to the bubble, I'm interested to know whether or not a team has shown itself capable of beating tournament-caliber teams.  Teams that have wins against other tournament teams should be more attractive than teams that don't. 

[KnightSlappy]

We also don't know to what extent Thiel's win over La Roche was counted in last week's rankings. Did the GL Region committee count it, or wasn't it really applied yet since it was an in-region game against a team that is ranked in another region? How much info do the regional committees pass back and forth during the ranking process?

[ScotsFan]

Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.

If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.

Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS?  The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?

[wally_wabash]

Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.

If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.

Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS?  The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?

SOS includes only in-region competition.

[KnightSlappy]

Sort of, but the fact that Thiel's SOS is 0.055 higher than Witt's suggests they're playing better overall competition.

If it's not a game versus a ranked team it doesn't matter if the loss was to Calvin or Oberlin.

Is that SOS just vs. teams in-region or overall SOS?  The reason I ask is because Thiel has played 3 games vs. Div. II opponents and I would assume that is where they are getting their boost in SOS?

That is only for in-region D3 games.

I have Thiel at 0.514 and Witt at 0.459
-----------------------------------------------
For all D3 games (in and out of region):

Thiel is 0.503 and Witt is .494

I don't have SOS numbers that include D1, D2, NAIA, etc., but I don't think the NCAA ever factors it in.

[KnightSlappy]

And to be clear, I'm using the new multipliers in the in-region numbers but not the overall numbers. The handbook doesn't specify if the multipliers also exist in the secondary criteria or not.

[KnightSlappy]

New rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/

GREAT LAKES   
1 Wooster 20-1 17-1
2 Hope  16-5 12-1
3 Wabash 17-4 16-4
4 Marietta 19-2 16-2
5 Penn State-Behrend 18-2 18-1
6 Thiel 15-6 12-3

[wally_wabash]

You were spot on, Slappy.  You've got your finger on the pulse of these rankings.  I thought Wabash might slip to #4 in these rankings this week, but clearly Wabash's three wins over regionally ranked teams (vs. zero for Marietta) is carrying significant weight.  That, and Wabash's sizeable SOS advantage.