Great Lakes Region

[oldknight]

We are under the second year of only once ranked... once ranked, always ranked was done away with after the 2013 tournament when some teams had some insane vRRO numbers. I thought that was a decision across the board in all sports, but I am not positive.

Anyway... the data sheets are the data the committee looks at that is compiled after events have finished on the Sunday prior. The committees get the information on Monday, regional committees chat and vote on Tuesday, national committee chats and votes on Wednesday morning, rankings Wednesday afternoon.

One note, the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, Feb. 28... the vRRO is then recalculated and the national committee then readjusts the regional rankings, possibly again, and then start making selections from there.

And of course with no buttinsky fans being able to point out possible errors!  (I know you've pointed out that this is the NCAA's, not the selection committee's, decision, but the secrecy is still awfully annoying.  And the NCAA wonders why fans rate them ALMOST as lowlife as the IOC or FIFA.)

To be honest... it isn't even the NCAA's decision. The NCAA as a whole will do whatever it's membership wants. But each and every year, the national committee chairs for all Division III sports gather and one of the topics they always vote on (after debate) is whether they want to release the date - that vote has always favored not releasing the data.

Yes, the men's committee and others (football for example) have pushed for changing this policy and they have not been successful. What is disappointing is I was under the impression the number of those against it were the majority, but maybe losing ground including the women's committee who were now pushing for public information. That changed apparently this year. The women's committee has said publicly they are against it and it turns out this year's national meeting resulted in a vast majority against releasing the data.

The problem is... they are scared and basing it on fear. They don't want to have coaches coming after them pissed off because they think their team deserved to be in the tournament and think they got screwed. They probably have completely bogus reasons and don't understand the criteria, but that doesn't stop them... and as a result it keeps those committees from wanting to "show their work." Furthermore, from what I have been told, when there are coaching committees like the NABC who work hard to work with the national committee to not only communicate what they think works and why. The NABC also educates the coaches about how it works AND work as a conduit between the coaches and the committee to communicate. The WBCA does not have that relationship, or it is just starting to grow better, and it shows.

Unfortunately, a compromise I was told had traction didn't work out. One idea brought up at the last national meeting was allow whomever wanted to release the rankings to do so... and allow those who don't want to release them not do it as well. It didn't pass for whatever reason. Amazingly, when I ask for reasons for these things I get run arounds from anyone who doesn't want to release the data. Those who do, walk carefully as to not anger those they disagree with.

Thanks for the background Dave. Help me try and understand one thing: When the committee withholds the rankings, those coaches whose teams don't get in will still be pissed off, will still think their team deserved to get in, and will still think they got screwed. On top of that, the conspiracy theorists among the coaching ranks will assume nefarious reasons for the committee's decisions. So how does the committee think it is benefited by not releasing data? Or, to put the question another way, shouldn't the committee be more scared by not releasing the data than by releasing it?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

oldknight - I wish I could help you, but I can't. Your argument is exactly the same argument I make to those I get into conversations about this topic who are against releasing the data. For some reason, they hind behind the "the tournament proves who was ranked and where" and they feel releasing the data will apparently give coaches information - or they can make up - that will be used against the committee.

The women's committee chair basically said that because vRRO changes so much that releasing the data will only confuse people because apparently they don't understand that. While we can beat a dead horse about how inaccurate that is, what I got from that is she is basically saying coaches don't know what they should be looking at or understand everything and one of those items is vRRO... so instead of dealing with them or educating coaches, they rather just have the tournament speak to the rankings.

I have also gotten the "we don't want to answer questions" argument which I usually figure is a shot at "media" - or us. But that hasn't actually held up considering the ones who are the most dug in don't have as much media. However, when I have that I say the following: releasing the data actually gives me less questions to ask. I point out that I ask many other questions to figure out data points and such before I can even get to my originally intended question. Thus, say six questions instead of releasing the data and regional rankings and leaving me with one question.

^^^Yeah, as expected - and totally pathetic.

Those who WANT to do the right and open thing bowing to those who are scared s**tless of being open and transparent.  And too friggin' stupid to realize that openness is the ONLY effective weapon against coaches who 'think' they got screwed.  I was proud to spend a career as an educator.  Educators can often cure 'ignorant', but we can't cure 'stupid'.

I wouldn't say the men's committee is "bowing" to anyone. They are flat out told by the NCAA that because a majority don't want to release the data, they can't do it. The NCAA is operated like a republic or democracy. Nothing gets passed or implemented without member schools approving them. If the majority said they wanted to the data released, then those who don't want to release it would also have no choice but release their data.

As for the rest of it... I don't disagree and I assure you I get the sense that even the management of Division III feels not releasing the data makes any sense... but again, it isn't in their purview to change it.

[sac]

On Feb 6 Hilbert was 2 full games back of PSU-Behrend, tonight they are AMCC outright Champions.



For the week
1. Marietta                 Win----Win
2. John Carroll            Loss----Win
3. Ohio Wesleyan       Win----Win
4. Alma                       Loss-Win
5. Hope                      Win----Win
6. Wooster                  Win----Win
7. Hiram                      Loss----Win
8. Mt. Union                Loss----Win----Win
9. St. Vincent              Win----Win

Less exciting Saturday. 


So if it seems like I don't like this system you would be correct.    As I posted on twitter I hope the regional and national committees take into consideration a team like Wheaton (5-20).  That will be Hope's third least valuable game on their schedule, a multiplier adjusted .150 for OWP calculation purposes.  That 5-20 team took #6 Hope to double OT and #1 Augustana to overtime.  Using Win% is just a terrible way to determine how strong any one single opponent may or may not be.  That, is why I can't stand all this number crunching.

[KnightSlappy]

On Feb 6 Hilbert was 2 full games back of PSU-Behrend, tonight they are AMCC outright Champions.



For the week
1. Marietta                 Win----Win
2. John Carroll            Loss----Win
3. Ohio Wesleyan       Win----Win
4. Alma                       Loss-Win
5. Hope                      Win----Win
6. Wooster                  Win----Win
7. Hiram                      Loss----Win
8. Mt. Union                Loss----Win----Win
9. St. Vincent              Win----Win

Less exciting Saturday. 


So if it seems like I don't like this system you would be correct.    As I posted on twitter I hope the regional and national committees take into consideration a team like Wheaton (5-20). That will be Hope's third least valuable game on their schedule, a multiplier adjusted .150 for OWP calculation purposes.  That 5-20 team took #6 Hope to double OT and #1 Augustana to overtime.  Using Win% is just a terrible way to determine how strong any one single opponent may or may not be.  That, is why I can't stand all this number crunching.

It's actually the fifth or sixth most damaging game. Both Olivet and Kalamazoo games hurt more and the neutral site game with Messiah is basically as bad. The way the multiplier is added, it's 'better' to play poor teams at home than at neutral or away sites.

[KnightSlappy]

Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:

Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.

Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.

Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.

Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.

A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

[David Collinge]

Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:

Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.

Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.

Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.

Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.

A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

Wooster and Hiram are on a collision course in the NCAC semifinals, so that is maybe a Pool C play-in game?

[KnightSlappy]

Heading into Championship Week, I think we have four tournament locks in the Great Lakes:

Marietta, Hope, John Carroll, and Ohio Wesleyan will all get into the tournament no matter what happens.

Alma and Wooster look pretty good. I think both would be locks if they get to their conference championship game, but I'm not going to call them locks right now. Depends on upsets and whatnot. They're both likely in though.

Hiram might sneak their way into Pool C discussion if they get to the NCAC title game, but they maybe look more like the last team on the table when the music stops.

Trine, St. Vincent, Penn State-Behrend, Hilbert, and Mount St. Joseph (along with everyone else) need to win their AQ.

A numbers update minus the Sunday games still in progress:
http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

Wooster and Hiram are on a collision course in the NCAC semifinals, so that is maybe a Pool C play-in game?

Maybe, though Hiram needs the win more than Wooster. If Wooster makes the NCAC final, they're in. If Hiram doesn't they're out. (And Wooster maybe still in even if they don't and Hiram maybe still out even if they do).

[David Collinge]

I know it runs deeper than HTH, and clearly you know this stuff way better than I do, but it's hard for me to imagine Hiram beating Wooster in the semis (giving them 2 of 3 vs. the Scots), then being left out while Woo gets in.

[KnightSlappy]

I know it runs deeper than HTH, and clearly you know this stuff way better than I do, but it's hard for me to imagine Hiram beating Wooster in the semis (giving them 2 of 3 vs. the Scots), then being left out while Woo gets in.

Difficult to know exactly what the RAC will do, but right now Wooster has the #27 SOS in the country and Hiram has the #226 SOS. There's a big gap to overcome there.

[fantastic50]

It's tough to get a Pool C berth with an SOS around .500. It's one thing for Hope to do that with a 21-1 regional record, but I can't see Hiram getting a Pool C berth with a 7th loss and a weak SOS.

[KnightSlappy]

Ryan Whitnable (Fifth and Putnam) was kind enough to have me on his program to talk about how the GL Region looks from a regional ranking data perspective. I'll shamelessly plug his show here:

http://greatlakesbasketball.podbean.com/e/conference-tournament-previews-matt-snyder-woosters-steve-moore/

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As long as the SOS is .500 or above... they have a shot.

[sac]

It's tough to get a Pool C berth with an SOS around .500. It's one thing for Hope to do that with a 21-1 regional record, but I can't see Hiram getting a Pool C berth with a 7th loss and a weak SOS.

They really need to make the NCAC Championship game where they'd get the 1.25 multiplier vs OWU.  A path of Kenyon, Wooster (neutral), at Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC tournament would boost their SOS over .500 to somewhere in the neighborhood of .516 I think.   Comparing nationally that's still probably not going to be enough.

Losing in the semi-finals to Wooster might get them a hair above .500 SOS, like .502



My 2cents on multipliers, not really related to Hiram, is that it should not hurt teams who have won their regular season championships by hosting conference tournament games, but that's what the use of multipliers does.   

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Per the SOS... people forget that the number is more than just the team and the outcome of the game up ahead. Because it is based on the entire schedule and the opponent's entire schedule, the number is rather dynamic and constantly fluctuating. Sure, a team will have a 1.25 boost, but elsewhere teams they played are winning, losing, playing on the road, at home, etc.

As for the multiplier, it's purpose was to get teams out of their gyms. There are quite a few examples of teams around the country who would pile up wins without ever leaving their gym, including against good teams. Coaches were fed up with this practice and decided to find a way not to reward those teams for the practice. For the most part, it has worked. I have seen those teams get out of their gyms for games (we are obviously talking out of conference games). Yes, I can see how a conference tournament can hurt, but in the grand scheme of things a team hosting a tournament is either already in great shape per their resume that the multiplier isn't going to kill them. Of course, you can find some exceptions like Lancaster Bible or others, but they already had problems with their SOS which even if the two games weren't multiplied wouldn't help. That's my point... I don't think in the long run it hurts or helps a team who is hosting the event considering they already have much of their resume helping them in the first place.

I will say that the criteria gets a thorough look-through after the season. The committee comes together after the dust settles and goes through things with the help of the NCAA. They have also had a chance to talk to coaches around the country who have either expressed displeasure or the like. The committee (or members of) have even chatted with the NABC (they have a great relationship between to the two groups) to see if there are things that need to be tweaked. The SOS certainly is not immune to change as we have seen in the past and every year I know it is discussed again.

[sac]

I posted these in December........

Between the end of non-conference play last year and the end of the season, Hope's SOS dropped about .060, from roughly .620 to .560.  That was with a much stronger non-conference schedule full of teams competing for their conference championships and ultimately NCAA invites.

Hope doesn't have that schedule this year and I stand by my thoughts Hope's SOS is going to drop a lot and will not be very good at years end compared to other C candidates.   If they get in the tournament it will be because of Pool A or because they'll have an outstanding win% you can't keep out of the tournament.

Trine's twitter is reporting the Thunder's 10-1 start is the schools best since 1983-84.

If you're wondering about Pool C.  Trine is in much better shape than Hope due to the SOS calculations but neither team is really going to present a great resume to the committee unless we as a league get 3 ranked teams in the region.    Alma's criteria is at least pretty decent as they'll have at least 3 wins vs ranked teams from outside the MIAA most likely and a pretty strong SOS.  Calvin actually isn't in terrible shape either.


Knightslappy ran his numbers this week:
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

I actually have Hope with much worse SOS, but since I'm much worth at math we'll go with KS's numbers.  I do think Hope's SOS is going to drop quite a bit as the year goes on and should finish around .500 or below which isn't all that great.

...apparently if you're willing to do the math, you can be pretty accurate predicting SOS numbers with a reasonable amount of certainty.