Great Lakes Region

[sac]

The Midwest Region has 13-7 Carthage number 6 in their Region.  They simply 'get it'.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.

Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.

And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.

[KnightSlappy]

Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.

Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.

And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.

Hope's is .588

[sac]

Well, Cathage's SOS is a stellar .590.

Remember a few other things, vRRO is not part of the criteria for this week, SOS numbers will adjust accordingly in the weeks ahead, and these regions seem to be more on par with each other than in years past.

And most importantly, this is just the first week... as a source on the men's side told me today... some things need to shake out in the weeks ahead.

Hope's is .588

and they beat Carthage, by 18

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

And both teams are ranked 6th this week.

And the head-to-head across regions doesn't mean much when comparing teams in different regions. That will only matter with at-large and/or hosting chances.

[sac]

And both teams are ranked 6th this week.

And the head-to-head across regions doesn't mean much when comparing teams in different regions. That will only matter with at-large and/or hosting chances.

Please stop justifying this ridiculous system

Carthage is ranked ahead of Rose-Hulman, same record as Wittenberg, same SOS

6. Carthage  13-7          .650/.590
7. Rose-Hulman  17-4    .810/.511

5. Wittenberg  17-4      .810/.510
6. Hope  14-5                .737/.588


This is the kind of inconsistency that drives people like me who love this division and its tournament crazy.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You are using two points of the criteria... use the rest of the criteria:

- Carthage defeated Wash U (by 2), Rose-Hulman lost to Wash U (by 20).

- Wittenberg lost to Wheaton (by 9), Hope lost to Wheaton (by 19).

That data is important.

And I am not justifying it as much as I understand decisions made when I see it on paper. This is the system... it is far better than in the past... and it is always being improved upon. But in those two examples you give me...

Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.

[KnightSlappy]

MOV is not a part of the criteria.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Actually, the criteria reads "results" which doesn't mean it can't take into account the margin of the victory. If you are comparing just one team's results... it could play a factor. I have never been told the margin of victory was not considered and it was just a win/loss scenario.

[KnightSlappy]

Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.

This is the thing though. I get called crazypants every year for suggestion a mathematical system, and everyone tells me that the committee is necessary to understand the 'finer points'. Yet it's clear that the RACs rank teams differently across the country and that rankings aren't consistent from week-to-week or year-to-year.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I mean differences in where teams are slotted next week... not differences in opinion. The national committee is stressing that everyone consider the data evenly and take each comparison individually... that one solution does not fit all.

A mathematical solution will not make it better. The committees are allowed to consider what they know in their regions... the home/away factor... the understanding of injuries and such. A math problem will never give us that understanding or reasoning.

[Pat Coleman]

Actually, the criteria reads "results" which doesn't mean it can't take into account the margin of the victory.

Exactly. Kind of an eye-opening thought four or five years ago when someone first said that to us but now it's a little more natural to remember it this way.

[sac]

Can there be differences? Sure... I bet that is why the national committee too 2:20 today discussing it. Will there be differences down the road? Probably. Is this the first ranking and really means nothing in the end? Absolutely.

This is the thing though. I get called crazypants every year for suggestion a mathematical system, and everyone tells me that the committee is necessary to understand the 'finer points'. Yet it's clear that the RACs rank teams differently across the country and that rankings aren't consistent from week-to-week or year-to-year.

I would take straight RPI over this every day of the week.

[smedindy]

I mean differences in where teams are slotted next week... not differences in opinion. The national committee is stressing that everyone consider the data evenly and take each comparison individually... that one solution does not fit all.

A mathematical solution will not make it better. The committees are allowed to consider what they know in their regions... the home/away factor... the understanding of injuries and such. A math problem will never give us that understanding or reasoning.

RIGHT THERE! The luddite bias against metrics rears its head.

It's not a MATH PROBLEM. It's a system where analytics and metrics could make the process and system more transparent, more egalitarian, more open and not subject to smoke-filled rooms, mirrors, speculation, haphazard ratings, good ol' boy cronyism and reliance on reputation and not results. Without a rigorous analytical approach that the regional committees can apply consistently you'll get regions that try to game everything and regions that will try to keep the chosen few up on top - or at least that's what people will think.

[David Collinge]

Ranked GL teams went 3-3-1 tonight, as #2 OWU, #4 Marietta, and #5 Wittenberg lost by 11, 20, and 22, respectively.