Great Lakes Region

[HopeConvert]

Indeed, quite a night in the MIAA.

Reading these posts, I say it once again: all D3 games should count. Get rid of the regional criteria.

[Pat Coleman]

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.

Bingo.

I believe it's one ranking spot for every 6.5 teams in the region, similar to the access ratio. Therefore it's actually trying to be exactly fair, rather than the unfairness being claimed in this conversation.

The Great Lakes is smaller. If we ranked, say, six teams in every region, it would be twice as hard to get a ranked team on your schedule in the Northeast as it would be in the East.

[sac]

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.

Bingo.

I believe it's one ranking spot for every 6.5 teams in the region, similar to the access ratio. Therefore it's actually trying to be exactly fair, rather than the unfairness being claimed in this conversation.

The Great Lakes is smaller. If we ranked, say, six teams in every region, it would be twice as hard to get a ranked team on your schedule in the Northeast as it would be in the East.

But its not fair when comparing teams across different regions.  It absolutely gives a big advantage to teams from bigger regions.

[Pat Coleman]

Can you go into a little more detail about that?

[sac]

If it comes down to a C bid.......and for kicks lets compare a GL team to a NE team and for kicks pretend each team played every ranked team in their region once.  All  of their other criteria are equal.

The GL team will have 5 games the NE team will have 9 games, this is an inherent advantage to the NE team.   Who's to say the #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams in the Great Lakes aren't just as good or better than the 7, 8, 9 or 10 teams in the Northeast?  But the GL team gets no credit for playing them but the NE team does.

There are simply fewer opportunities for the smaller regions to play ranked teams because there are fewer ranked teams..........how fair is it to compare one team from a small region to another that can play more ranked teams?


I know its one criteria, but I feel its one that is very unfair to the smaller regions like the Great Lakes.

[Pat Coleman]

Well, that could be the case regardless of the number of teams ranked. Is the seventh-best team out of the 40 in the Great Lakes better than the 11th team in the 73-team Northeast? Maybe, maybe not. But one is in the top 15% of the region and the other isn't.

Why should it be easier to get ranked in one region than another?

I liken it to when every region used to get eight teams in the tournament no matter what. So in the East or Atlantic that was a 16-12 team while in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast you had to go 21-6 to get in.

[ziggy]

If it comes down to a C bid.......and for kicks lets compare a GL team to a NE team and for kicks pretend each team played every ranked team in their region once.  All  of their other criteria are equal.

The GL team will have 5 games the NE team will have 9 games, this is an inherent advantage to the NE team.   Who's to say the #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams in the Great Lakes aren't just as good or better than the 7, 8, 9 or 10 teams in the Northeast?  But the GL team gets no credit for playing them but the NE team does.

There are simply fewer opportunities for the smaller regions to play ranked teams because there are fewer ranked teams..........how fair is it to compare one team from a small region to another that can play more ranked teams?


I know its one criteria, but I feel its one that is very unfair to the smaller regions like the Great Lakes.

KnightSlappy and I discussed a system in which the teams still build a resume based on regional play (as it is now) but then it goes a step further to determine who is "ranked" on a national basis into a top 25 or 35 or 50. It would be the same process as selecting Pool C bids. This ensures that the teams truly deemed to be the best are counted as ranked opponents rather than whomever happens to be the best of an arbitrarily defined geographical area.

[kiltedbryan]

OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.

#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll

OAC tournament page with links for live stats/audio/video.

[seinfeld]

OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.

#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll

OAC tournament page with links for live stats/audio/video.

Thanks for pointing this out. This is a new schedule for the OAC. In the past, they had the quarterfinals on Wednesday and then the semifinals on Friday and the championship on Saturday. The players probably like this better, but it does make for a little more work logistically, I would think. Doing something like this in the NCAC may not work because of the long travel that Wabash (and soon DePauw) in particular already have when going to Wooster, that they could potentially have to miss three days of school for the tournament. The same would probably be true if Allegheny had to to go Witt or especially Indiana.

[kiltedbryan]

OAC semifinals tonight, both games 7:30 p.m. tips.

#5 Heidelberg at #1 Marietta
#3 Capital at #2 John Carroll

OAC tournament page with links for live stats/audio/video.

Thanks for pointing this out. This is a new schedule for the OAC. In the past, they had the quarterfinals on Wednesday and then the semifinals on Friday and the championship on Saturday. The players probably like this better, but it does make for a little more work logistically, I would think. Doing something like this in the NCAC may not work because of the long travel that Wabash (and soon DePauw) in particular already have when going to Wooster, that they could potentially have to miss three days of school for the tournament. The same would probably be true if Allegheny had to to go Witt or especially Indiana.

It does appear to be new this year, as the OAC board from last year indicates the Wednesday/Friday/Saturday schedule, with the Friday/Saturday games all at the highest remaining seed after the quarters.

Unfortunately, with such limited dicussion on the OAC board, no one has commented on why the league decided on this new structure. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the switch. It's still the same number of trips, just a different distribution throughout the week. Also, it makes for a tournament without the possibility of any neutral court games--perhaps the OAC felt that avoiding neutral court games would improve attendance?

It's also interesting since the NCAA is using its lopsided SOS weighting factors for home/away games vs. neutral court games...probably won't matter for the OAC this year, but I could see a year where you'd want to be the team traveling rather than hosting all week in the tournament if the NCAA keeps similar home/neutral/away factors.

[ziggy]

It's also interesting since the NCAA is using its lopsided SOS weighting factors for home/away games vs. neutral court games...probably won't matter for the OAC this year, but I could see a year where you'd want to be the team traveling rather than hosting all week in the tournament if the NCAA keeps similar home/neutral/away factors.

You are absolutely right.

The NCAA's justifies the fairness of the weighting by saying that it evens out in conference where there is a balance in home and road games and encourages teams to test themselves on the road at least some of the time out of conference. That is good in theory but it ends up punishing the team that is "rewarded" by hosting conference tournament games. Then again, the NCAA has never made a point to look at the whole picture, only the part that fits their model.

[seinfeld]

I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.

[kiltedbryan]

I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.

Yeah. With this structure--all teams play at the highest remaining seed--it's theoretically possible for every game in the tournament to be played at a different venue. If the bottom four seeds sweep the opening night (this happened once in the OAC, I believe), teams #5 and #6 would host #8 and #7, respectively, on Thursday. If #7 and #8 then won, #7 would host the final. All teams 1-7 would have hosted one game of the tournament.  That would be one heck of a tourney!

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I didn't notice that the semifinals were at two different locations. Interesting.

Yeah. With this structure--all teams play at the highest remaining seed--it's theoretically possible for every game in the tournament to be played at a different venue. If the bottom four seeds sweep the opening night (this happened once in the OAC, I believe), teams #5 and #6 would host #8 and #7, respectively, on Thursday. If #7 and #8 then won, #7 would host the final. All teams 1-7 would have hosted one game of the tournament.  That would be one heck of a tourney!

Not to mention the havoc it would create for someone's Pool C chances

[kiltedbryan]

Capital 74
John Carroll 81

Heidelberg 55
Marietta 70

Championship at Marietta on Saturday.

Has Marietta become a "lock?"