Pool C

[Mr. Ypsi]

Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Very true, but the committee MIGHT decide to flip the logic - Wooster is surely the only two-loss team in the country where BOTH losses came to teams who are still undefeated!

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ) have this to do all over again!

Yes!  I know what I would like to see. 

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   

No specific number, just the more the better - and as Frank pointed out, the more out-of-region the better if you're doing national selection.  Of course, that violates D3 protocols!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Very true, but the committee MIGHT decide to flip the logic - Wooster is surely the only two-loss team in the country where BOTH losses came to teams who are still undefeated!

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ) have this to do all over again!

I'm with you, Prof--but why didn't your academic brethren listen to me when I was a mere undergrad, and they were dishing out grades of C to all of us within one standard deviation of the mean, in a class of 18?  I mean, I know the guys who took this class last year, Doc--they were a bunch of morons, we're all smarter than them! 

Do you have a favorite upset possibility?  I'm pulling for Alfred over St. John Fisher (to cap the 2008 E8 Clusterfu. . . nny story), and for some odd reason, I feel compelled to root for John Carroll v. Otterbein.

Note also that I said I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.   There would have to be some weighting of those criteria, but I haven't come up with a clear idea of what the weighting scheme would be, other than winning percentage is somewhat more valuable than OWP/OOWP--but how much more valuable, I can't yet say.

We all know that when students ask "do you grade on a curve" they really mean 'will you raise our grades if we all f*** up'?

I always told my students (especially in stats, but often also in other classes) "if I grade on a curve, only ONE of you (perhaps two or three in larger classes) can get an A no matter how well you do - like it?".  Fortunately I had enough ambitious students that the others didn't seem to realize that that also meant there would also be only one (or 2 or 3) E's - maybe that's why they got E's!

My REAL reasons were that the sample was too small to expect a 'normal' distribution, and they were not a random sample of any definable population (so might be all good, all bad, or anything in between).

[Frank Rossi]

Is that(Mr Kaiser's) interview available on podcast?

No - We're talking to him on the air Sunday night.  This was a conversation I had with him while we scheduled that interview on Monday.  When I brought up Husson and the chore it could cause, he was very candid about Husson being a two-loss team in their view because of the need to quickly open up the playbook to both primary and secondary criteria because of the lack of confidence numbers based on such a small sample of games can provide with just SoS and Regional Win %.

[Frank Rossi]

Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Very true, but the committee MIGHT decide to flip the logic - Wooster is surely the only two-loss team in the country where BOTH losses came to teams who are still undefeated!

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ) have this to do all over again!

Yes!  I know what I would like to see. 

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   

No specific number, just the more the better - and as Frank pointed out, the more out-of-region the better if you're doing national selection.  Of course, that violates D3 protocols!

Well, careful there - You're putting a word in that I didn't use.  Out-of-CONFERENCE is the key.  Those should probably be inside your region for maximum effect.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sorry, Frank - you DID say out of conference, not out of region.  But for national selection criteria, out of region would work even better.

That's an enduring conundrum in D3 - I appreciate the philosophy, and am glad they don't just pretend that all regions are equal, but for national selection, there is precious little national data to work with.

[Mr. Ypsi]

...
Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ) have this to do all over again!

The task...

it is Sisyphian!   

Well, time to get to work, fellow Sisyphuses (Sisyphi?)

Just for starters, SJF's loss moves Ithaca from C to A.

[Ralph Turner]

I posted this in the LLPP and thought some of you might want to read it.  I did it with respect to the questions we've been receiving concerning RPI's potential Pool C status.

This is an analysis of the state of affairs if Pool C were being picked today.  In order to perform this analysis, we must first square away some Pool A and Pool B issues.


Pool A Issues
-------------

As you know, Pool A represents 23 slots.  Currently, 14 of these slots have been determined (courtesy Pat Coleman's post on the Daily Dose):

ASC: Mary Hardin-Baylor
CC: Muhlenberg
CCIW: North Central
HCAC: Franklin
IIAC: Wartburg
MIAA: Trine
MWC: Monmouth
NCAC: Wabash
NJAC: Cortland State
NWC: Willamette
OAC: Mount Union
PAC: Thomas More
SCIAC: Occidental
SCAC: Millsaps

Only one of these teams (Thomas More) does not appear in the present NCAA Regional Rankings.  This weekend, the remaining nine slots will be filled this weekend.  Here is an analysis of those races (courtesy Ralph Turner in response to Pat Coleman's post):

E8 — SJF (4-1) must beat Alfred (3-2) to get the co-championship and the Pool A bid over Ithaca (5-1) which plays Cortland St.

LL — Hobart (5-1) must beat Rochester (3-3) to clinch the AQ. RPI (5-1) earns a co-championship with a win over Merchant Marine (1-5).

MAC — Albright (5-1) can clinch with a win over Del Valley (4-2). LebValley (4-2) and Lycoming (4-2) also play.

MIAC — Carleton (5-2) at SJU (5-2) for the outright title and Pool A bid.

NATHC — Aurora (6-0) hosts Lakeland (5-1) for the Pool A bid.

NEFC — Plymouth State at Maine Maritime in the NEFC Bowl.

ODAC — Catholic (4-1) hosts Bridgewater (2-3). A win gives them the AQ. H-SC (4-1) goes to Randolph-Macon (3-2).

USASouth — CNU (6-0) hosts Ferrum (5-1) for the AQ.

WIAC — UWSP (5-1) hosts UW-Lacrosse (3-3) to clinch the AQ. UW-Whitewater (5-1) is at Platteville (2-4).

...

Keep those scenarios in mind for later in this post.


Pool B Issues
-------------

Now, let's look at Pool B.  The likely choices for the three Pool B bids are:

1) Case Western Reserve (8-0 Regional, 9-0 Overall);
2) Wesley (3-1 Regional, 7-1 Overall); and
3) EITHER the winner of Huntingdon/LaGrange (H is 7-1 Regional, 8-1 Overall while L is 7-0 Regional, 8-1 Overall) OR Northwestern (Minn.) (8-1 Regional, 8-1 Overall).

I'll comment more on the Pool B third slot later only if it plays a role in the analysis.


How Pool C Works
------------------

So, now, let's look at how Pool C works.  There are six slots this year in Pool C.  The process generally utilized by the Selection Committe is to rank the Pool C nominees in each Region against the others in that Region before matching up the top Pool C seed in each of the four Regions.  The Committee will take the top team out of the four being reviewed, place it in Pool C and replace that team with the next highest seed in that Region's Pool C seedings.  This repeats until all six teams are selected.

Using this week's Regional Rankings, here is the likely seeding of each region's Pool C nominees:

East:

1) Ithaca, 2) Montclair lost, 3) RPI lost, 4) Hartwick, 5) Rowan and 6) Curry  Husson?

North:

1) Otterbein, 2) Wooster and 3) Elmhurst

South:

1) Hardin-Simmons, 2) Hampden-Sydney, 3) Wash. & Jeff. and 4) The Winner of LaGrange/Huntingdon if not chosen for Pool C

West:

1) UW-Whitewater, 2) Redlands and 3) Northwestern (Minn.) if not chosen for Pool C


Pool C Selection
--------------------------------------------------

As a review, the six Pool C teams at this time appear to be:

1) Otterbein, 2) UW-Whitewater, 3) Ithaca, 4) Hardin-Simmons, 5) Hampden-Sydney and 6) Montclair St.


What RPI Needs to Happen
--------------------------
RPI would stand a very decent chance of making the NCAA Playoffs if any of these scenarios occurred this weekend (or virtually a 100% chance if two or more occurred), assuming Hobart and RPI both win:

1) Cortland beats Ithaca (Ithaca removed from Pool C with loss);
2) Alfred beats St. John Fisher (Ithaca removed from Pool C with Pool A win);
3) John Carroll beats Otterbein (Otterbein removed from Pool C with loss);
4) UW-Platteville beats UW-Whitewater (UW-Whtiewater removed from Pool C with loss);
5) UW-La Crosse beats UW-Stevens Point (UW-Whitewater removed from Pool C with Pool A win)*;
6) Randolph-Macon beats Hampden-Sydney (Hampden-Sydney removed from Pool C with loss);
7) Kean beats Montclair St. (Montclair St. removed from Pool C with loss); or
8) Bridgewater (Va.) beats Catholic (Hampden-Sydney removed from Pool C with Pool A win).

* - UW-Steven's Point COULD be considered with two losses for Pool C, although their selection would be unlikely.

Again, for safety, RPI needs to root for at least TWO of these scenarios.  If one occurs, there is a possibility for a subjective or objective analysis to knock it out of the Pool C debate when it finally reaches the board (i.e., after Ithaca and/or Montclair are picked to allow for RPI discussions).

Lots of great research and analysis, but the results on the field turn our efforts into sophistry!   

But, that is why we play the games!  This has been fun today!

[TigerOldSchool]

Is any madness on the final day putting Redlands in with a win?

Of course they are trailing Cal-Lu at the moment.

[Ralph Turner]

Cal Lu beat Redlands 24-17! 

CARNAGE!

The Selection Committee almost has a clean slate!   

[TigerOldSchool]

Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?

[Ron Boerger]

What a shame DePauw is stuck behind so many one-loss teams in the South.  If there were in the East they might get on the board fast enough to have a shot at the sixth spot, what with today's huge win against an undefeated, very highly-ranked opponent.

[redswarm81]

Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?

I'll start my D-III football equivalent of an ACLU case now.

There's only one undefeated Pool C candidate, and that's Husson.  If Husson doesn't get a Pool C bid, then the Committee is not following its own rules, which require an evaluation based on ALL Primary Criteria before evaluating based on ALL Secondary Criteria.  In other words, NCAA Tournament selection is not like a Chinese menu.

When analyzing on Primary Criteria only, you can make an argument that a 1-loss team makes up for its lower in-Region won-loss percentage by having wins v. RROs and better OWP/OOWP, but when you start comparing a 1.000 winning percentage to .800 and .778 winning percentages, that's a LOT of ground to make up.

I'm probably the only one who sees it that way, but that's the way the Primary Criteria look to me.

[Bob.Gregg]

All races in one place:

D3 Races

Includes Pool B teams in the hunt.
Includes Pool C 1-loss & 2-loss teams in the hunt.
Includes all 23 AQ races.

[Ralph Turner]

East Region
1. Cortland State 9-0 9-0   9-1 9-1  NJAC Pool A
2. Ithaca 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1  E8 Pool A
3. Montclair State 8-1 8-1  8-2 8-2  Losses to Cortland and Kean;  beat Rowan
4. Hobart 7-1 7-1  8-1  8-1  LL Pool A
5. RPI 7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2   LL Pool C  Losses to Hobart and Merchant Marine
6. Hartwick 7-2 7-2  E8  Pool C  Losses to Ithaca and Springfield
7. Plymouth State 9-1 10-1  NEFC Pool A
8. Rowan 7-2 7-2  8-2 8-2 NJAC Pool C  Losses to Cortland St and to Montclair St
9. Curry 8-1 9-1  NEFC Pool C Loss to Plymouth State 
10. Albright 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  MAC Pool C Losses to Salisbury, Del Valley and Lycoming

Lycoming 7-3 6-3  MAC Pool A
UR Husson 7-0 7-2 Pool B/C  Losses to D2's American International and to Merrimack

North Region
1. Mount Union 8-0 9-0  9-0 10-0  OAC Pool A
2. North Central (Ill.) 9-0 9-0  10-0 10-0 CCIW Pool A
3. Wabash 8-0 9-0  8-1 9-1  NCAC Pool A
4. Trine 9-0 9-0  10-0  10-0  MIAA Pool A
5. Case Western Reserve 8-0 9-0  9-0 10-0  UAA Pool B
6. Otterbein 8-1 8-1  9-1 9-1 OAC Pool C  Loss to MUC
7. Franklin 7-1 8-1 8-1 9-1 HCAC  Pool A
8. Wooster 5-2 7-2  6-2 8-2  NCAC Pool C  Losses to CWRU and Wabash
9. Elmhurst 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  CCIW Pool C
10. Aurora 8-1 8-1  9-1  9-1  NATHC Pool A

South Region
1. Millsaps 8-0 9-0  8-0  10-0  SCAC Pool A
2. Muhlenberg 9-0 9-0  9-1  9-1  CC Pool A
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 8-1  8-0  9-1  ASC Pool A
4. Hardin-Simmons 9-1 9-1  Pool C  Loss to UMHB
5. Catholic 7-1 8-1  7-2  8-2  ODAC Pool C
6. Hampden-Sydney 7-1 8-1  7-2 8-2 ODAC Pool C
7. Washington and Jefferson 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1 Pool C Loss to TMC
8. Wesley 4-1 8-1  ACFC Pool B
9. Huntingdon 7-1 8-1  7-2 8-2 Pool B/C Losses to Hampden-Sydney and LaGrange
10. Christopher Newport 6-1 7-1  7-1  8-1  USA South Pool A

Thomas More 8-2 8-1  Pres AC  Pool A
Randolph Macon 6-4 6-3  ODAC Pool A
LaGrange 9-1 8-0  SLIAC Pool B

West Region
1. Willamette 8-0 9-0  9-0  10-0  NWC Pool A
2. Occidental 8-0 8-0  9-0  9-0  SCIAC Pool A
3. Monmouth 10-0 10-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 5-1 8-1  6-1  9-1  WIAC Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 7-1 8-1  8-1  9-1  WIAC Pool C
6. Redlands 7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2  SCIAC Pool C
7. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1  8-2  8-2 Pool B/C
8. St. John's 7-2 7-2 8-2  8-2  MIAC Pool A
9. Wartburg 8-2 8-2 IIAC  Pool A
10. Carleton 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  MIAC Pool C

UR  Cal Lutheran 7-2 7-2   Losses to Willamette and Oxy  (Results vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents RRO)  -- Saves a first round flight.
 
Legend:

Pool A
Pool B
Pool C
Lost this week

Corrections appreciated...

[Mr. Ypsi]

Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?

Looking over Ralph's list, I'd think W&J would probably be #4, but my crystal ball gets real foggy after that.