Great Lakes Region

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That is up to the committee in the region to decide. I am just trying to point out they could have gone to that criteria to make a decision.

I am looking at the same numbers you are... and trying to determine the reason Marietta is above Hope. The only other thought I have is that Marietta has played more in-region games in general - but I am not positive about that either and I am not sure if the NCAA is counting the PSB game or not.

I know this forum kind of looks down on PSU-B, but three wins vs. regionally ranked teams vs. zero for Hope is significant.  The math will tell you that Behrend's schedule is awful, but somewhere in that awful schedule they've played, and beaten, some regionally ranked teams.  Those results have to matter, don't they?

LaRoche is one of those regionally ranked teams and somehow they've managed to play a schedule worse than PSU-B's according to massey.  One of the others is Medaille who also managed to play a schedule ranked worse than PSU-B's.

#372, #373 and #374


The term "regionally ranked" means nothing when the quality of play from one region to another is so drastically different.

It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference.  The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6.  Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked.  Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams.  That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.

To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions.   I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.

Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.

[sac]

Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.

#342 is significantly better?

[ziggy]

Depends on which Massey Ratings you look at ... La Roche's number is significantly better in the "BCS" version.

#342 is significantly better?

I agree with sac but since some people have a problem with Massey let's look at wSOS

LaRoche: 0.477
Medaille: 0.460

Is it just me or are we looking at a regional ranking pyramid scheme?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

La Roche is 110 in the normal Massey Ratings... and 21 in the BCS version... I call that significant.

[sac]

La Roche is 110 in the normal Massey Ratings... and 21 in the BCS version... I call that significant.

schedule strength not their ranking

[KnightSlappy]

We're shooting the messenger by yelling at Dave, he's just throwing out ideas, but I hate it that the committee doesn't take SOS seriously.

Marietta's SOS is .470
Hope's is .518

That's akin to a difference of 0.131 in winning percentage (based on the high-low spreads of each category).  

[wally_wabash]

The term "regionally ranked" means nothing when the quality of play from one region to another is so drastically different.

I think the term "regionally ranked" means everything because that's what the NCAA focuses in on.  Now...as to how teams get ranked and get access to those regionally ranked teams...

It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference.  The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6.  Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked.  Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams.  That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.

To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions.   I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.

I agree with these points.  I'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).  Should probably also think about coralling an entire conference into one region for rankings purposes.  But that's something for the rules committee to think about for the future. 

[ziggy]

It's also another example of what a big advantage some regions have over others because they get to rank more teams, PSU-B gets an advantage by being in the GL's and not the mid-atlantic like most of the rest of its conference.  The mid-atlantic gets to rank 9 teams, the Great Lakes 6.  Chances are really good if the Great Lakes ranked 9 we'd have multiple MIAA teams that would have been ranked.  Calvin, Albion, Adrian and even Olivet were all in a position to be ranked if this region went that deep to rank teams.  That's a lot of wins in the regionally ranked category Hope doesn't get credit for vs teams of similar ability(and probably better), all because the GL can't rank more than 6 teams.

To top it off PSU-B has the added advantage of playing in a conference with teams in 3 different regions.   I doubt Medaille would be ranked in the Middle Atlantic and would not be ranked in the Great Lakes either.

I agree with these points.  I'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).  Should probably also think about coralling an entire conference into one region for rankings purposes.  But that's something for the rules committee to think about for the future.  

KnightSlappy and I were discussing these sort of things on Saturday afternoon. We had plenty of really good ideas for fixing the system but there is one main problem: the NCAA doesn't really care.

Think about it; they take arbitrarily defined regions (with arbitrary provisions for expanding what constitutes a "regional" game) and arbitrarily apply a set of primary and secondary criteria. In the end a tournament is created and the right team probably wins but that doesn't mean the field was correct. The ends always justify the means with the NCAA.

[KnightSlappy]

So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A

Verdict: Marietta

How does this even get into the secondary criteria?

[ziggy]

So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A

Verdict: Marietta

How does this even get into the secondary criteria?

The irony is that only a Hope College cosmo could know the answer to this question.

[wally_wabash]

My initial thought regarding Marietta and Hope was that Marietta has played so many more games in region that the extra loss is outweighed by the four extra wins...but that's not what the criteria says.  The criteria clearly specifies win percentage, so the total number of games ought to be irrelevant.  Ought to be...I think it's clear that it isn't.  Marietta is either getting credit for those extra wins or Hope is getting punished for their non-region losses...neither of which should be happening per the criteria (I have other thoughts on non-regional and non-D3 games which I'll save for another time). 

[Civic Minded]

So, to recap for Hope vs. Marietta:

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. Hope 0.882, Marietta 0.864
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). Hope 0.522, Marietta 0.474
• In-region head-to-head competition. N/A
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. N/A
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. N/A

Verdict: Marietta

How does this even get into the secondary criteria?

The irony is that only a Hope College cosmo could know the answer to this question.

Now ther's the Ziggy we know and love!     For a minute I thought you'd gone all warm and fuzzy on us.   

[ScotsFan]

My initial thought regarding Marietta and Hope was that Marietta has played so many more games in region that the extra loss is outweighed by the four extra wins...but that's not what the criteria says.  The criteria clearly specifies win percentage, so the total number of games ought to be irrelevant.  Ought to be...I think it's clear that it isn't.  Marietta is either getting credit for those extra wins or Hope is getting punished for their non-region losses...neither of which should be happening per the criteria (I have other thoughts on non-regional and non-D3 games which I'll save for another time). 

Hope seemed to be punished last year for their fewer number of total in-region games and maybe also in previous years as well and I think it is pretty obvious that the NCAA is sending Hope another message this year.  Quit scheduling so many non-conference games vs. NAIA and non-regional opponents and pad your non-conference scedule with a bunch of in-region cupcakes and you will be better off for it.   

[David Collinge]

I'm not sure what the reasoning is for having a different number of teams ranked in each region (seems patently unfair when results vs. regionally ranked teams is an important factor for selection and seeding).

It's the top X% of each region--I don't recall what the value of X is, but its the same across the regions.  The Northeast Region has almost twice the number of men's teams as the GL, so they get almost twice as many teams ranked.

[David Collinge]

Heckuva night in the MIAA tonight.