Great Lakes Region

[fantastic50]

JCU should most definitely be ahead of Marietta with a 2-0 head-to-head.

With the head-to-head sweep, I'll give you that.  I need to get head-to-head results included in my analysis.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The big game is over, so now it's time to focus only on basketball. Division III basketball to be exact.

Join Dave and a number of guests on this special Monday edition of Hoopsville. There is plenty to talk about including another crazy weekend of results that will have Top 25 voters scratching their heads and maybe pulling hair off their head as well. Plus, the first regional rankings come out later this week. While predictions are hard, there at least will be some reminding of how this all works.

And maybe even a preview of what this evening's Top 25s look like.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show starting at 2:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2FOQ7hX

If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media.

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Marc Edwards, No. 2 WashU men's coach
- Chris Harvey, Salem State men's coach
- Bill Fenlon, DePauw men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
- Caitlin Hadzimichalis, King's women's coach
- Cameron Hill, Trinity (Texas), women's coach

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville



Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected.  That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.

Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:

(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.

he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion. 

That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1)  the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762)  and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0). 

Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.

Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics. 

I am understanding the evaluation process properly?  This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.

[Fifth and Putnam]

Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected.  That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.

Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:

(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.

he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion. 

That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1)  the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762)  and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0). 

Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.

Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics. 

I am understanding the evaluation process properly?  This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.

This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected.  That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.

Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:

(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.

he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion. 

That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1)  the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762)  and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0). 

Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.

Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics. 

I am understanding the evaluation process properly?  This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.

This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).

Great point.  A few weeks ago, I was hopeful that a Pool A bid from either BW-JCU-Etta might result in the other two getting Poll C bids.  That was dependent on no one getting upset along the way by teams outside of that triumvirate.  Well, BW lost a few times, Etta was upset and JCU dropped one to Muskingum so that is out the window at this point and ONU is back in the conversation. Three bids seems unlikely.  Maybe if JCU and Etta win out with a loss by one in the semis and a loss by the other in the semifinals as that would give someone else the OAC Pool A and JCU and Etta would still have good to very good Pool C resumes.

Should be a fun couple weeks.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.

And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.

One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.

[monsoon]

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

Yet without Week 1 rankings, we could not have vRRO in Week 2. We don't see it until next week, but the stone actually starts rolling here.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

Yet without Week 1 rankings, we could not have vRRO in Week 2. We don't see it until next week, but the stone actually starts rolling here.

Yep... this helps us get a glimpse of what the committees are thinking, processing, etc. Week 2 finally kind of gives us a guide as to how things will probably shake out.

Week 1 also gives us a chance to make sure there are no errors.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Over my 20 years following this closer than most but not even close to as much as some, I think I have a decent understanding (but not necessarily acceptance) of how the regional rankings are put together and how the tournament teams are ultimately selected.  That said, Etta and JCU, to me, is very difficult to evaluate.

Listening to the Committee Chair on Hoopsville last week, I was reminded that while there are five main criteria:

(1) Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
(2) Division III strength of schedule.
(3) Division III head-to-head competition.
(4) Results versus common Division III opponents.
(5) Wins against RRO.

he was quick to remind Dave that no one main criterion is any more important than any other main criterion. 

That being the case, at this point, and in the absence of having RRO criterion to consider, JCU has, I believe, (1)  the superior winning percentage (.786 - .762)  and (2) the edge in head-to-head match-ups (2-0). 

Marietta, I believe, has (1) the better results against common D3 opponents (not factoring in the Etta-JCU games which is covered in the head to head component above, Marietta is 12-2 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope while JCU is 10-4 against the rest of the OAC/LaRoche/Hope) and (2) the better SOS.

Tough not to call that a coin-flip but, at some point, I would think you would have to give more weight to one component over another or you'd be paralyzed to make a decision using these metrics. 

I am understanding the evaluation process properly?  This will all sort itself out soon with each team not having a lot of gimme games left (JCU with BW and 'Berg in addition to a tough trip to Ada and Etta also with a trip to Etta) and the OAC tournament looming but it is still fun to run the numbers. and try to get in the head of the committee.

This may end up being a situation where because of head to head and similar numbers...JCU would be ahead of Marietta on the regional rankings, but Marietta has a more attractive Pool C resume (this assumes neither JCU or Marietta win the auto bid).

I think you are correct on that.  The only way I see JCU pulling ahead of Etta (but not earning the Poll A) would be to win their next 6 beating Etta in the semis and then losing the OAC final to someone else.  I think that would give them the better resume even it Etta wins its next 5.    That said, I think Etta has a much better chance to win out than JCU as this weeks BW game followed by a roadie to ONU will be a tall order.

[Fifth and Putnam]

Both Marietta and JCU have to go to ONU still...that's a tough barn to play in.

ONU still has Pool C aspirations in my mind..all their difficult games left are at home. They win out and win a couple home games in the OAC Tournament and they very well could play their way back on to the good side of the bubble.

There's only 4 regular season games left, but it's still so much basketball left to be played. A lot of scenarios are still on the table.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Both Marietta and JCU have to go to ONU still...that's a tough barn to play in.

ONU still has Pool C aspirations in my mind..all their difficult games left are at home. They win out and win a couple home games in the OAC Tournament and they very well could play their way back on to the good side of the bubble.

There's only 4 regular season games left, but it's still so much basketball left to be played. A lot of scenarios are still on the table.

I always thought that the trip to ONU from just about every other league school, save Heidelberg, is a rough one as it is so remote.  Whether you are two hours away or 4 hours away, you feel like you have traveled to nowhere and back.  The trip from Etta has to be a real b%$@#.  I would not be surprised if either or both of us dropped that one.  We just need to avoid losses in our other three games.

Last year JCU played their way right out of the tournament with some bad losses down the stretch including being upset in the regular season final and the first round of the OAC.  They win those two and they would have been a candidate for a Pool C; instead,  they collected the jerseys.   JCU call ill-afford another Musky or Mount like loss this season and Etta is in the same boat.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Men's first regional rankings this season: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-first

[Onward on, John Carroll]

One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.

And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.

One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.

Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents?  I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.

And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.

One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.

Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents?  I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure.

It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

One other major thing to remember, Week 1 Regional Rankings give us an idea of how the committees are seeing things a bit. However, after Week 2's are published... Week 1 means nothing.

We don't get to see vRRO this week, because it doesn't exist. Week 2 has them and then helps influence the rest of the rankings for the most part. Week 1... has no impact.

SOS numbers will continue to adjust. I don't tend to start leaning on SOS numbers for any insight until Week 2's rankings.

And yes, the committee chair pointed out what all committee chairs point out (I certainly didn't need to be reminder )... no item has more weight than another in either the primary or secondary criteria. Each comparison is evaluated from it's own perspective.

One other thing to keep in mind... two teams are rarely compared by themselves. The comparisons could involve three, four, five, or more teams. All the OACs will also be compared to the NCACs and others. It simply can't be a head-to-head comparison and move on to another comparison with the team that is leftover.

Dave . . . do the vRRO numbers next week reflect the record against the week 2 regionally ranked opponents or the week 1 regionally ranked opponents?  I would assume the week 2's but I am not sure.

It's Week 1 - the only time they consider the rankings they are doing in the VRRO is in the final rankings on selection sunday.

Thanks, Ryan.