Great Lakes Region

[Titan Q]

KnightSlappy, I love your regional rankings - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

When do you plan to update next?  At some point after this weekend's game I'd like to dig into the Midwest rankings a little.  Your data is so helpful in that process.  Thanks for doing this.

By the way, I think you might have IWU with one extra in-region win.  D3hoops.com incorrectly (as far as I know) lists Mississippi College as in-region.  I have IWU 12-3 now, after the Wednesday win over NCC...

http://www.iwuhoops.com/schedule12-13.html

[KnightSlappy]

KnightSlappy, I love your regional rankings - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

When do you plan to update next?  At some point after this weekend's game I'd like to dig into the Midwest rankings a little.  Your data is so helpful in that process.  Thanks for doing this.

By the way, I think you might have IWU with one extra in-region win.  D3hoops.com incorrectly (as far as I know) lists Mississippi College as in-region.  I have IWU 12-3 now, after the Wednesday win over NCC...

http://www.iwuhoops.com/schedule12-13.html

I like to update Monday, but mayhaps I can do it at lunch today just for kicks.

I have what D3hoops has, so it's incorrect for me too (though I can manually adjust if I remember after each update). Pat's really fast with fixing errors, so PM him about it.

[KnightSlappy]

I just went ahead and updated it. Will plan on another update on Monday.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

Through Thursday 1/24/2013

[Pat Coleman]

Fixed.

[Titan Q]

Thanks to both of you!

[KnightSlappy]

OWU and Adrian lost, and Calvin, Wooster, Thomas More, St. Vincent, Capital, and Marietta all won.

1. Calvin (13-0)
2. Wooster (16-2)
--- a not-insignificant gap ---
3. Ohio Wesleyan (14-3)
4. Thomas More (15-2)
5. St. Vincent (12-3)
6. Pick one of Adrian (10-4), Marietta (14-5), and Capital (13-4) -- Marietta beat Capital head-to-head, but Marietta lost to Wooster who Adrian beat. So perhaps:
     6a. Adrian
     6b. Marietta
     6c. Capital

     6d? Baldwin Wallace would be next; they're really the only other team you could consider ranking at this point. They're 1-1 vs. Capital and 1-0 vs. Marietta, so they might actually be in the #6 mix as well. I say the OAC three are too convoluted to figure out, so give the spot to Adrian who's the only one of the four to have beaten one of the five teams above.

I believe the first set of rankings include games through Feb 3, so we're basically one week away from things becoming official. The race for the #6 spot will be interesting.

Adrian is @Hope and @Trine this week so if they go 2-0 they're pretty much getting ranked -- their already good SOS will take a good jump.

[KnightSlappy]

Still think the top five in the GL are (in order)

Calvin (14-0)
Wooster (17-2)
Ohio Wesleyan (15-3)
Thomas More (16-2)
St. Vincent (13-3)

But the sixth spot is a mess. Consider the following teams (winning percentage/SOS) sorted by WP:

Capital (.778/.507)
Marietta (.750/.489)
Baldwin Wallace (.737/.489)
Adrian (.667/.535)
Hope (.643/.570)

If you combine WP and SOS by standard RPI you get the following order: Hope, Capital, Adrian, Marietta, Baldwin Wallace.

If you combine WP and SOS in a 50-50 manner, you get: Capital, Marietta, Baldwin Wallace, Hope, Adrian.

I think the committee tends to look at winning percentage first, so that's why I listed them the way I did at the top. Looking at everything it seems like Capital is the best bet.

But not so fast my friend. Marietta is 1-0 versus Capital. But then Baldwin Wallace is 1-0 versus Marietta (and 1-1 versus Capital). But then Adrian beat Wooster and Baldwin Wallace and Marietta lost to Wooster. But then Hope is 2-0 versus Adrian.

I say after all this Capital gets it, but man, you could go round and round on that.

[smedindy]

Why not just rank Fransican to see some heads asplode!!! 

[ziggy]

I agree that Capital probably takes the sixth spot in today's rankings. They have the best WP of the bunch with a SOS over .500, that's typically where you want to be to avoid getting into the minutiae.

Assuming they take care of business against John Carroll, they probably lock down the sixth spot in the first rankings. Interesting that such a scenario probably sets up a battle for that very spot when they travel to Marietta the same evening the rankings are released. Win that and they might have a stranglehold on the sixth spot, lose and it could go to Marietta on the strength of a 2-0 head to head record.

Adrian's win over Wooster is a fading memory when combined with what they have done against other GL Region contenders. They still have a better in-region WP than Hope but I have to believe Hope's better SOS number combined with two wins over Adrian puts them ahead of the Bulldogs.

[KnightSlappy]

Adrian's win over Wooster is a fading memory when combined with what they have done against other GL Region contenders. They still have a better in-region WP than Hope but I have to believe Hope's better SOS number combined with two wins over Adrian puts them ahead of the Bulldogs.

But common opponents is a primary criterion, and Mike DeWitt mentioned that they're charged with considering all criteria equally.

I don't know that it means that they're weighed equally against each other, but it's still a big factor. Capital is 0-1 versus teams expected to be regionally ranked, and Adrian is 1-2. That gives the Bulldogs the advantage over Capital in three of the five primary criteria (with the fifth, head to head, not applying in this case).

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

[kiltedbryan]

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?

[KnightSlappy]

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?

Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.

[kiltedbryan]

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?

Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.

And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)

[KnightSlappy]

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?

Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.

And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)

Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.

[kiltedbryan]

Also, to go another direction for a minute, I don't think it's a lock that Calvin is ranked ahead of Wooster.

I'm assuming because of the big-time SOS differential (your blog has Calvin at .451 and Woo at .567) and maybe also with Wooster expected to have more overall results vs. regionally ranked teams?

Right, Calvin has the winning percentage advantage right now and common opponent thing with Adrian, but Wooster's schedule looks a lot better, and they have a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked where Calvin will likely be 0-0 (though I don't think they really factor results versus regionally ranked in the first set of rankings.

And it is "once ranked, always ranked" right? So Wooster wants to see B-W get ranked but not Adrian; OWU wants Marietta and Capital to get ranked; and Calvin would love to see Adrian and Hope in there. (Based on results to-date, at least)

Once ranked always ranked, yeah. The "results versus regionally ranked" criterion is odd though. It seems (from past years) that even a loss is better than none at all (though you'd prefer wins). So getting the 0-fer on Adrian might be better than not having it count.

Oh, right. I remember reading about this on the boards in previous years - since the criterion says "results" and not "wins" or "losses" or "winning percentage" etc. Thus, a 3-3 set of results might be seen more favorably (or at least equally) than an 2-0 because of the six data points vs. two. I guess it could be seen as a a way, perhaps, for the committee to reward programs that try to schedule strong competition (though surely some of that would be internalized by SOS).