Great Lakes Region

[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.

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).

Yeah, in my opinion it's double counting the SOS component. And it's tough to penalize a team like Calvin, for instance, who scheduled in-region games versus Wabash and Anderson (usually strong programs) only to have those two teams tank compared to previous years.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.

[ziggy]

But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.

But is the bolded portion really true? It might be true, but Team B could have the higher SOS. Then are you prepared to say the team with the higher SOS played less quality competition? If so, what's the point of SOS?

And even if one fully accepts that there is overlap between SOS and results vs. regionally ranked, why is SOS adjusted for home and way and RvRR is not?

I would prefer the NCAA use RvRR as a microscope to zoom in on games played against a higher level of competition than the rest of the schedule. Rather than using it to make a statement that includes conclusions covered by one of the other criterion, use it to simply ask, "when this team plays other regionally ranked teams, are they successful?" Team B gets a weak 'yes' (yes, but small sample size) while Team A gets a weak 'no' (better sample size but lost more than they won).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For starters... I did say "thus why there are many criteria and not just a few." The SOS is a consideration, but they also want to show teams who went above the SOS in some senses.

Listen... there are multiple criteria and focusing on just one or two as the be-all and end-all doesn't work... and next year it all changes again anyway!

[KnightSlappy]

But you also can't put in a "supposed to be better" or a "well they are normally good" or a "when they scheduled that game..." factor. Also, I think the message is clear from the committee... if you want to be considered seriously, at least challenge yourselves even if you lose the game. When you look at Team A who is 2-3 vs. regionally ranked teams vs. Team B who is 1-0... at least you know that Team A went out there and scheduled quality competition. Sure, Team B might have scheduled other opponents who aren't getting ranked, but then Team B needs to make sure that criteria isn't the deciding factor. Thus why there are many criteria and not just a few.

But you don't really know that. They scheduled teams that ended up being ranked, but you don't know that Team A didn't try to do just the same, that's my point. By creating a home-and-home series with Anderson, playing Wabash, and being in a league with Hope, Calvin was scheduling teams that are no strangers to the regional rankings. Just happens that none of these four games will be marked as "versus regionally ranked" right now.

I'm not saying credit it to them, I just think this criterion is a bit silly.

[wally_wabash]

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).

Yeah, in my opinion it's double counting the SOS component. And it's tough to penalize a team like Calvin, for instance, who scheduled in-region games versus Wabash and Anderson (usually strong programs) only to have those two teams tank compared to previous years.

Ouch!  It's a tough year...four senior starters graduated after 2011-2012 and pretty much all of Wabash's scoring went out with the class of '12 soooo....there was going to be a bit of a reboot this year.  But it underscores the point you can't really purposefully "schedule up".  Teams wind up with strong SOS's and RRO results as much by coincidence as anything else.  At the end of the day, win 21 or so games and who was on your schedule won't really matter.

[smedindy]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!

[KnightSlappy]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda makes for nice coffee talk, but you can't change the reality of the situation. If you want to avoid missing the tourney because you've been saddled with a schedule that looked 'good' but turned out poor, then WIN YOUR LEAGUE!!

Want to win the MVP every year? Hit a home run every time you're at the plate and never make an error in field.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The reason for having the regionally ranked component is that it adds to the SOS... the SOS is made up of obviously more than your actual schedule which could inflate or deflate your SOS accordingly. Thus, if you have regionally ranked opponents on your schedule you have another benefit when it comes to your resume. It adds a bit more understanding maybe to that SOS and schedule. Furthermore, if you are 15-1 but only 1-0 against regionally ranked opponents, you can weight those accordingly.

As for scheduling... sh!t happens. As much as teams you thought would be good end up being duds, there is a team no one expected to be good but was scheduled to fill a spot and all of the sudden is an important part of the schedule. Also, you don't think coaches know what teams are comprised with for the future and whether they may have an off year (outside of rampant injuries) when they schedule home-and-homes? I promise you that many coaches are weighing whether a team will be good in a year or two based on the team they have now and realize they may run into an off year.

Finally, to rest Calvin's season on the fact that Wabash and Anderson were off this year (and to be honest, I didn't expect those teams to be stellar this year, so why should Calvin) is a lot to put on Calvin's schedule - in other words... two teams doesn't make or break a schedule.

[sac]

Finlandia is the team killing Calvin's schedule strength.



record vs regionally ranked opponents is practically useless in a region that only ranks 6 teams.

[Mr. Ypsi]

But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region?  Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ).  [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]

[sac]

But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region?  Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ).  [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]

I am aware of that and whoopdy do.  The Great Lakes, Atlantic regions will have the fewest 'ranked' teams of every region.  This is major advantage to the power conferences of the other regions that the GL power conferences really don't get to enjoy.

[Mr. Ypsi]

But doesn't results against regionally-ranked means mean ranked in ANY region?  Therefore, Calvin will also have Wheaton (though that didn't turn out so well ).  [And Hope will have NCC, Wheaton, and IWU if they finish well enough for that to be relevant.]

I am aware of that and whoopdy do.  The Great Lakes, Atlantic regions will have the fewest 'ranked' teams of every region.  This is major advantage to the power conferences of the other regions that the GL power conferences really don't get to enjoy.

They will have the same proportion of ranked teams as every other region.  The problem, of course, is that the size of regions is no where near balanced.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Other regions' rankings count... and regional realignment is coming to hopefully offset many of the issues with region unbalance.

[wally_wabash]

Other regions' rankings count... and regional realignment is coming to hopefully offset many of the issues with region unbalance.

Which kind of underscores the silliness of regionality in the first place.  Why count RROs from different regions but not use those teams' records in the SOS metric?  KS calls it double dipping, which it is, but if the result counts then it should count all the way around.  They need to count all D3 games and wipe out the silly "what is a regional game" rules (which I think they're doing maybe starting next year, right?). 

There are a lot of ways to interpret the "results vs. RROs" which I think muddles the at-large process.  Bubble teams, all of them, are on the bubble precisely because they have proven that they can lose games.  They all lost games along the way that they shouldn't have or they wouldn't be on the bubble.  I'd like to see the committee put a giant emphasis on examining who teams beat.  Did they beat RROs?  Did they beat other teams already qualified for the tournament?  Again, I know you can lose otherwise you wouldn't be on the bubble.  I want to know if you can beat tournament caliber teams.  If yes, then you probably make the field better.