Great Lakes Region

[KnightSlappy]

It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year.  I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?! 

But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... 

1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0

Calvin's problems in terms of the criteria are:

* SOS (.444) - to put .444 into perspective, it is the lowest of the 56 teams I looked at here - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.4365.

* The fact that they not only don't have any wins over regionally ranked teams, but they don't have any games played

Not that it counts for anything, but interesting to note that the computer model KnightSlappy produces has Calvin #7 in the Great Lakes, behind the 6 above and Hope - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html


I'm not saying Calvin isn't one of the top 2-3 teams in the region in actuality, but in terms of the published criteria they do have significant problems.

I don't so much have a problem with where Calvin is ranked (see the aforementioned link on my blog) so much as I have a problem with where they're ranked compared to where we've seen similarly resumed teams of the past ranked.

[Mr. Ypsi]

It really is baffling to me to see how these rankings have played out this year.  I mean, it's hard enough for me to understand how Calvin isn't #1 in the GL region, let alone find themselves ranked below the likes of Thomas Moore and St. Vincent?! 

But like I always say this time of the year, it is virtually impossible to try and figure out what the thought process of the NCAA when they do their rankings... 

1. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1
2. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
3. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2
4. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
5. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
6. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0

Calvin's problems in terms of the criteria are:

* SOS (.444) - to put .444 into perspective, it is the lowest of the 56 teams I looked at here - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.4365.

* The fact that they not only don't have any wins over regionally ranked teams, but they don't have any games played

Not that it counts for anything, but interesting to note that the computer model KnightSlappy produces has Calvin #7 in the Great Lakes, behind the 6 above and Hope - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html


I'm not saying Calvin isn't one of the top 2-3 teams in the region in actuality, but in terms of the published criteria they do have significant problems.

I don't so much have a problem with where Calvin is ranked (see the aforementioned link on my blog) so much as I have a problem with where they're ranked compared to where we've seen similarly resumed teams of the past ranked.

Therein lies the conundrum.  The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand.  But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way.  I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third.  And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!

[Titan Q]

Therein lies the conundrum.  The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand.  But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way.  I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third.  And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!

I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region?  You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.

[KnightSlappy]

Therein lies the conundrum.  The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand.  But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way.  I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third.  And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!

I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region?  You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/22/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/

Birmingham-Southern last year was basically a carbon copy of Calvin.

They won a Pool C spot with (according to my numbers) .917/.441/0-0.

.826/.516/0-1 Lake Forest was left out.

[Titan Q]

Therein lies the conundrum.  The published criteria are supposed to allow teams to know what they have to do and where they stand.  But since the criteria can be weighted however a current committee sees fit to rank them, it doesn't work out that way.  I feel confident in saying that in most past years, Calvin would be ranked somewhere between first and third.  And Calvin does have three wins over underperforming teams (Adrian and Wabash) who both have wins over #1 Wooster!

I'm not saying you're wrong Chuck, but what examples can you point to of a team with an SOS that low, and zero wins vs regionally ranked, being ranked 1-3 in a region?  You might be right, but I lived in Missouri for three years recently, so show me.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/22/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/

Birmingham-Southern last year was basically a carbon copy of Calvin.

They won a Pool C spot with (according to my numbers) .917/.441/0-0.

.826/.516/0-1 Lake Forest was left out.

That's a good example.  Here is an idea of who they got in over...


Round 19
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3


That reference to Round 19 is just where I guessed they got in - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855.  I certainly can't prove that.

[smedindy]

I'd certainly have rewarded Birmingham Southern mainly because of the isolation factor. I think the Calvin folks need fret not - unless they're just bloviating just to pump up their post numbers! 

[KnightSlappy]

99% sure the top four will be set: 1. Wooster, 2. OWU, 3. Thomas More, 4. St. Vincent

Then I see four possibilities:

5. Calvin, 6. Capital
5. Calvin, 6. Hope
5. Hope, 6. Calvin
5. Hope, 6. Capital

In any of the above scenarios, Calvin would be effectively fifth in the region because they'll either (1) really be fifth in the region or (2) have a 1-1 vRRO from Hope due to hit in the final rankings which would make up the difference.

I don't see either

5. Capital, 6. Calvin
5. Capital, 6. Hope

as real possibilities. I don't believe there is an argument by which Capital should be above Calvin that wouldn't also put Hope above Capital.

[realist]

I'd certainly have rewarded Birmingham Southern mainly because of the isolation factor. I think the Calvin folks need fret not - unless they're just bloviating just to pump up their post numbers! 

I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation.  For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region".  Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games.  Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams.  Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C.  The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team.  The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land. 

[Titan Q]

I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation.  For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region".  Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games.  Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams.  Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C.  The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team.  The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.

Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:

1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and

2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.


Both of these things have been important for many years now.  I don't think it's necessarily fair to say "now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams" - these things have been important for the last 5 years+.  When we look back on the selection process we can clearly see this.

I think the frustration is really more around the perceived inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated, 1) at the two levels (regional, national), and 2) from year to year. 

[Pat Coleman]

Agreed. Neither of these things is new.

[realist]

I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation.  For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region".  Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games.  Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams.  Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C.  The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team.  The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.

Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:

1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and

2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.


Both of these things have been important for many years now.  I don't think it's necessarily fair to say "now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams" - these things have been important for the last 5 years+.  When we look back on the selection process we can clearly see this.

I think the frustration is really more around the perceived inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated, 1) at the two levels (regional, national), and 2) from year to year.

I think you are being generous and disingenuous at the same time with the "perceived inconsistency" statement.  If the metrics change from region to region, and year to year that is not "percieved", but in fact, real "inconsistency".  When the metrics aren't locked, and equally applied it gives room for exactly the kind of chicanery that the NCAA would have us believe they go to great lenghts to avoid.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think when it comes to "inconsistency in how the metrics are evaluated" it is more on how the committee(s) have evolved with the data. There was a time when some of the criteria seemed to be ignored or parts were influenced too highly. I know that last year there were issues in some regions that the SOS was basically being ignored while in others the WP seemed to be playing second fiddle.

Having talked to a number of committee members, especially chairs, in the last five plus years, I can tell you that they are constantly trying to improve the process and not allow any single factor to out weigh others. As a result we have seen an evolution in how teams have been ranked.

I would also say that last year's inconsistencies and the inability for the national committee to make changes to the weekly rankings (a first for last year and something not repeated this year) caused many on the national and regional committees to be frustrated. I also know that many were frustrated by the leadership last year along with the lack of communication on decisions made, etc.

However, I will say that Calvin's scenario is not new. There were many teams last year with strong WPs but low SOSs: Albertus Magnus, F&M, Medaille, Bethany and CMS come to mind. F&M actually moved up the regional rankings to finish #2, but it had more to do with the teams losing around them then anything else. The rest of those teams were in the middle or low end of their rankings in the final ones made public.

Is Calvin maybe better than their ranking indicates? Probably. However, even Coach Vande Streek said on Hoopsville that teams they had on the schedule didn't perform to their potential this year and Calvin is having to pay for it. He has served on the committee and knows how this works and I didn't hear him complain once for their scenario.

And finally, I get the real sense that many people want these selections and rankings to be cut and dry and based on only hard data and weighted accordingly... that isn't going to happen. The BSC.. I mean BCS  doesn't allow the computers to control the rankings completely... and D1 basketball doesn't allow the data to control it completely. There are committees in place that will weigh the data per each head-to-head and such to decide where teams will be placed or selected. We shouldn't be getting away some type of human interpretation. And remember, the "old boys network" made some of the strangest decisions of all time... at least the data helps get rid of that aspect of the selection process and makes the committees look at the real information in front of them to make these decisions.

[KnightSlappy]

I don't think it is bloviating as much as voicing consternation.  For years we heard the preaching "in region", "in region", "in region".  Hope, Cavin, and most of the MIAA have increased their # of in region games.  Now Calvin is faced with having scheduled "in region" games, done quite well at it, and now the preacher is declaring sos, and wins against ranked teams.  Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Calvin loses in the MIAA tournament, and gets left standing with it's hat in it's hand re: pool C.  The simple fact where Calvin has been regionally ranked gives every indication that none of the committee is impressed with what Calvin has done, and leaving Calvin out makes it possible to reward another team.  The NCAA has left itself sufficient "wiggle room" to make whatever decision they want, and have provided themselves cma covveerage.
Yes, my friend politics right here in D 3 land.

Well, I see these as two separate and equally important issues:

1) You have to play a certain # of in-region games, and

2) You have to have positive numbers in three areas: in-region winning %, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents.

These issues are potentially at odds though. The average WP of Calvin's possible non-conference, in-region opponents (considering only teams that exist in MI, the GL region, or MW region -- not Virginia or anything) is .469.

So, potentially, playing MORE regional games means playing worse ones.

[KnightSlappy]

And finally, I get the real sense that many people want these selections and rankings to be cut and dry and based on only hard data and weighted accordingly... that isn't going to happen. The BSC.. I mean BCS  doesn't allow the computers to control the rankings completely... and D1 basketball doesn't allow the data to control it completely. There are committees in place that will weigh the data per each head-to-head and such to decide where teams will be placed or selected. We shouldn't be getting away some type of human interpretation. And remember, the "old boys network" made some of the strangest decisions of all time... at least the data helps get rid of that aspect of the selection process and makes the committees look at the real information in front of them to make these decisions.

And the coach votes is/was where the corruption exists.

[oldknight]

Thanks to 'd-mac' for a detailed and fair rendering of a process that will always be imperfect. The bottom line is that if Calvin wins two games this week, Pool C trivia is, well, just trivia to them. Conference results showed the Knights were the best team in the MIAA this year, they are healthy, and they get home court advantage. Things are set up for them to win two games this week so let's just do it.