Great Lakes Region

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Has anyone received any word on why Hope's in-region record was incorrect again last week?

From what I have been told, the information about Hope was correct for the committee - correct wins as noted here for them and Covenant. Why that data wasn't correct on the SOS sheets we see is not known. Whether the SOS numbers the committee saw are flawed because the data sheet we saw is wrong... I don't know. However, I was assured that the committee is apparently looking at the correct information which was corrected from previous versions.

[sac]

Not to break up the party, but there are quite a few tournament games tonight.  At least in conferences that actually have tournaments involving more than 4 teams

OAC 
#8 Otterbein at #4 Mt. Union                      http://athletics.mountunion.edu/sports/mbkb/index
#6 Ohio Northern at #3 Wilmington           http://www.wilmington.edu/mens-basketball/

NCAC     http://www2.northcoast.org/mbasketball/NCACTournament/2013
#8 Oberlin at #1 Wooster
#5 Wittenberg at #4 DePauw
#6 Wabash at #3 Kenyon
#7 Denison at #2 Ohio Wesleyan

as I type this the 5/4 and 6/3 games have already started


PAC
livestats and stuff at the bottom of the schedule page
http://www.pacathletics.org/calendar.aspx?path=mbball&season=2012-13&
#8 Waynesburg at #1 St. Vincent
#5 Grove City at #4 Thiel
#6 Wash & Jeff at #3  Bethany
#7 Geneva at #2 Thomas More


AMCC
#6 Pitt-Bradford at #3 PSU-Behrend          http://www.psblions.com/sports/mbkb/2012-13/schedule

[sac]

Results

OAC
#4 Mt. Union 66 #8 Otterbein 60
#3 Wilmington 71 #6 Ohio Northern 49

NCAC
#1 Wooster 74 #8 Oberlin 47
#5 Wittenberg 63 #4 DePauw 62
#3 Kenyon 77 #6 Wabash 72
#2 Ohio Wesleyan 77 #7 Denison 56

PAC
#2 Thomas More 82 #7 Geneva 60
#6 Wash & Jeff 70  #3 Bethany 64
#4 Thiel 57  #5 Grove City 44
#1 St. Vincent 72 #8 Waynesburg 62

AMCC
#3 PSU-Behrend 63 #6 Pitt-Bradford 42

[KnightSlappy]

Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.

Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.

[sac]

Thursday's Semi Finals

MIAA
#4 Adrian at #1 Calvin
#3 Trine at #2 Hope

OAC
#4 Mt. Union at #1 Capital
#3 Wilmington at #2 Marietta

PAC -  (reseeds)
#6 Wash & Jeff at #1 St. Vincent
#4 Thiel at #2 Thomas More

Friday Semi-Finals

NCAC  at Wooster
#5 Wittenberg at #1 Wooster
#3 Kenyon vs #2 Ohio Wesleyan

AMCC at Hilbert
#3 PSU-Behrend vs #2 LaRoche

[sac]

Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.

Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.

All of St. Vincent's games have been pretty close, lots of single-digit wins.   Their only meeting against a top 'power' conference opponent, Va Wesleyan, they lost by 25 in the first game of the season.
http://athletics.stvincent.edu/schedule.aspx?path=mbball

On another note, their pbp guy is excellent.

[smedindy]

Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.

Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.

You sound like an SEC fan slagging the Mountain West.  " By gosh Alabama would CRUSH New Mexico! And Vanderbilt would KILL Boise State! I saw 'em play! I DID!"

I kid because I love....can't make those assumptions - you know that as a DATA man. Unless you've become an Enos Cabell / David Eckstein fan! 

Also, remember - EARLHAM BEAT ROSE HULMAN THIS YEAR!

Oh, and also, the often denigrated, never venerated MANCHESTER (especially by the Calvin partisans) beat TRANSYLVANIA IN LEXINGTON!

So...um...yeah...be certain with that pick...

[KnightSlappy]

Waynesburg had St. Vincent within 6 most of the second half (including a lead a few minutes in), but they never could quite get over the hump.

Calvin would dismantle St. Vincent; I'm quite sure of that after watching this game.

You sound like an SEC fan slagging the Mountain West.  " By gosh Alabama would CRUSH New Mexico! And Vanderbilt would KILL Boise State! I saw 'em play! I DID!"

I kid because I love....can't make those assumptions - you know that as a DATA man. Unless you've become an Enos Cabell / David Eckstein fan! 

Also, remember - EARLHAM BEAT ROSE HULMAN THIS YEAR!

Oh, and also, the often denigrated, never venerated MANCHESTER (especially by the Calvin partisans) beat TRANSYLVANIA IN LEXINGTON!

So...um...yeah...be certain with that pick...

Right, given a large number of games the average result would be a comfortable win for Calvin.

Massey says Calvin by double digits on a neutral floor.

[wally_wabash]

If they want to rank Wooster ahead of Calvin because of the SOS and RRO differences, fine.  I don't agree, but I can buy it.  It just doesn't make sense that they would be lower than #2 here given 22 wins in 25 games.  That's excellent regardless of an OWP or OOWP or any combination thereof.

Really, the difference between 22-3 and 21-4 is insignificant at best.  But when you throw in the big advantage Wooster has in SOS over Calvin, it's hard not to see why Wooster is #1.  The part that confounds me is why Calvin's total résumé isn't good enough to have them ranked higher than they are.

But based on the criteria, who should Calvin be higher than, and why?

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


I'm not saying a disagree necessarily, but I guess I'm looking for a more criteria-based opinion.

The more I have looked at the numbers in the last week or so, the more I have come to realize the challenge Calvin has with the criteria.

As others have noted, it just depends on how you apply the criteria.  The reason why we have committees of people and not just an algorithm ranking teams (no offense, KS...your algorithm rules) is to apply a common sense correction factor when the raw statistics don't tell a complete story.  I think this is a clear case where the RAC is failing to properly use that oversight. 

Based on the criteria, I think Calvin should be ranked first.  They've won 95% of their in-region games and they have very favorable results vs. common opponents amongst this group (as you would expect when you've only lost one in-region game).  When I pick out Calvin's apples and compare them to the apples of the rest of the group, Calvin is the top team in the region.  With 20 games to look at and a 95% win pct, I hesitate to penalize Calvin for not having played any RROs.  That's not having not beaten any RROs...that's not having played any.  That's just unlucky and I don't think you can hammer a team for that. 

Really, it's a moot point as long as Calvin is selected to play in the tournament should they not qualify automatically.  They'll probably get jobbed on seeding and/or hosting, but that's how that goes.  The travesty is if they wind up 18-2 or 19-2 and don't even get an invitation.  That would be a bad day for this system. 

[calvinite]

Just for my curiosity, would KS or someone be willing to take Calvin's exact schedule this year and replace the Finlandia and Manchester games (which I'm certain were only scheduled to get more in-regions games which folks have been saying KVS should do more of) with one or two of the top teams in the 'region' (GL region or whatever counts as in-region game).

Assume Calvin loses both of these games for the sake of argument. How would the GL rankings look 'according to the criteria established for regional rankings -- the same criteria that is being discussed here at length.

Based on the results of this, I'm wondering if scheduling crappy in-region teams is really a good idea.

Second, I'm wondering if just scheduling one or two really tough, in-region games will make a difference for the situation that Calvin finds itself in. I mean, if one game would make a difference -- that's worth knowing. If, on the other hand, Calvin would need to have scheduled 5 tough, in-region games (replacing 5 weak teams) -- clearly KVS or any other coach in his shoes could not have arranged that.

Finally, for my own satisfaction, I'd just like to know if Calvin, using this screwed up regional ranking system, could have lost more games and been ranked higher.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to do this. My apologies if this was already done.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

First off... with their current schedule and SOS... losing more games would have them out of the regional rankings... period.

Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.

As for the comment about the committee using the human, common sense factor to understand the data... remember one thing, the committee can't use factors that are not in the criteria. So the "I know they are better than them because I just know it" just can't be used as a criteria... unless they look at it through the criteria and can make an argument accordingly.

This system isn't knew... and remember it changes a lot next year!

[sac]

First off... with their current schedule and SOS... losing more games would have them out of the regional rankings... period.

I really don't think you read calvinite's post

Just for my curiosity, would KS or someone be willing to take Calvin's exact schedule this year and replace the Finlandia and Manchester games (which I'm certain were only scheduled to get more in-regions games which folks have been saying KVS should do more of) with one or two of the top teams in the 'region' (GL region or whatever counts as in-region game).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I did read his post, but concentrated more on this aspect:

Finally, for my own satisfaction, I'd just like to know if Calvin, using this screwed up regional ranking system, could have lost more games and been ranked higher.

And my comment here does cover both thoughts:

Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.

In other words... playing a number of regional opponents that don't help your SOS but only help your WP... versus playing teams that will boost your SOS while maybe giving you one or two more blemishes doesn't work. Play the more challenging teams for an SOS boost as long as you don't go an lose 6, 7, or whatever games. If Calvin has a stronger SOS with one or two more losses, they would look better on the criteria because really only one of their criteria is taking a "hit" versus three or more as they stand now.

I also know we are beating on Calvin and that isn't fair. This is something at least one program in every region is dealing with almost every year... so this isn't something unfamiliar to these regional committees.

[ziggy]

There are really two issues at play in regards to the Calvin/SOS debate.

Yes, Calvin has a terrible SOS and the committee has to consider that in the way they best determine given the criteria. That is perfectly legitimate. Reasonable people can have a disagreement here.

But Dave, you never addressed the fact (or I missed it) that Calvin could have improved their SOS by playing Finlandia and Manchester at home instead of on the road. That is counter to the entire point of SOS and an issue that is beyond forgivable.

Getting hammered by SOS is one thing, getting hammered by SOS when the entire method is flawed is another.

[wally_wabash]

Secondly... I am of the adage of seeing this system over the close to five years it has existed and evolved... that scheduling top teams in the region does two things: improves the SOS no matter you win or lose; improves the "results" versus regionally ranked opponents. Those two factors would look better to the committee than a sub-par SOS and no results at all against regionally ranked opponents.

Yes and yes.  However, you can't possibly know one or two years out that the team you're putting on the schedule is going to wind up with a good record (OWP) or play a schedule against teams with good records (OOWP) or ever win enough games to be regionally ranked.  You just can't know that in advance.  Do we think Calvin saw Wabash as a 9-17 team when they put the game on the schedule?  Doubtful.  So it just isn't as easy as saying "schedule top teams".  Yes, there are some teams that you can usually count on to be perennially good.  But there just aren't an abundance of those teams and I don't think it always works to dial up Good Hoops U. and order up a home and home.  There is enough year-over-year turnover in who is going to post a good record and be ranked that you just can't plan on scheduling better teams.  Your SOS and opportunities for RRO games are luck of the draw, aren't they?

As for the comment about the committee using the human, common sense factor to understand the data... remember one thing, the committee can't use factors that are not in the criteria. So the "I know they are better than them because I just know it" just can't be used as a criteria... unless they look at it through the criteria and can make an argument accordingly.

I wouldn't ask the committees to go rogue and  invent their own criteria.  There is subjective latitude built in to how they apply the criteria and that's where I think you can keep things right.  Calvin has a stronger regional win percentage and favorable results versus common opponents as compared to the top-ranked Wooster.  Wooster has 3 wins over RROs, which doubles as a boost to their SOS as you alluded to ( there's some of the double counting that KS has mentioned before), while Calvin has zero wins over RROs.  But Calvin didn't play any RROs, so we can't say that Calvin wouldn't win 3 out of 4 games against RROs.  If Calvin were 0-2 or 0-3 vs. RROs, it's a different story and much clearer that Wooster should be given priority.  I think the human brains in the room can look at this and say that no results do not equate to negative results and then rank Calvin appropriately.  That thought process, I believe, is fair and doesn't color outside the lines.