Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[hopefan]

just to add another 'data point'

records vs D3 out of conference thru 12/5/09   note  -  there may be a couple of situation where games between conference foes that do not count as conference games are included.

ODAC   34   8   0.810 UAA   35   11   0.761 WIAC   28   9   0.757 MACC   29   10   0.744 NJAC   33   12   0.733 NESCAC   36   16   0.692 CCIW   29   15   0.659 MIAC   21   11   0.656 E8   25   14   0.641 SCAC   25   15   0.625 Newmac   29   19   0.604 SUNYAC   21   14   0.600 LEC   28   19   0.596 HCAC   22   16   0.579 OAC   22   16   0.579 GNAC   24   19   0.558 IIAC   20   16   0.556 NATCH   16   15   0.516 LL   22   21   0.512 AMCC   15   15   0.500 CAC   19   19   0.500 Mascac   20   22   0.476 MWC   17   21   0.447 Landmark   16   20   0.444 SCIAC   12   15   0.444 CC   16   21   0.432 ASC   8   11   0.421 NWC   7   10   0.412 NCAC   18   26   0.409 CCC   33   50   0.398 MACF   11   17   0.393 Sky   11   17   0.393 NECC   18   28   0.391 CSAC   9   14   0.391 MIAA   9   16   0.360 Independent   18   35   0.340 PrAC   9   19   0.321 CUNY   15   32   0.319 NAC   11   25   0.306 USAC   12   29   0.293 SLIAC   8   21   0.276 NEAC   12   36   0.250 UMAC   6   21   0.222

[Mr. Ypsi]

hopefan,

Your next assignment, of course, is to compute the OWP and OOWP!

[magicman]

hopefan,

Your next assignment, of course, is to compute the OWP and OOWP!

Along with the regional rankings.

[David Collinge]

records vs D3 out of conference thru 12/5/09   note  -  there may be a couple of situation where games between conference foes that do not count as conference games are included.

NCAC   18   26   0.409

Top 30 Bay-Bee!!!!!  Who says we're not a Power Conference?!?  Lefrakenstein was right all along!  Heck, even Ted Williams couldn't bat .409!   

[Gregory Sager]

I agree on this, and I think it would be great to see the NESCAC play a double round robin. Two points though-

First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice. Also Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan each play each other twice in the regular season and the Maine teams (Colby, Bowdoin, Bates) do as well. Amherst usually plays 13-14 NESCAC games a year (9 reg season league games, 2 extra 'Little Three' games, and 2-3 tourny games). So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)

That's 14 games against conference foes only if you're one of the two teams that reach the NESCAC title game, and only if you're in either the WAW triad or the CBB triad. Since Middlebury appears to be one of the top three NESCAC teams according to the NESCAC room consensus, this doesn't apply to the Panthers at all. They'll play 12 games at best against NESCAC foes prior to Selection Sunday. It's also selective enough to skew any comparisons to a true double round-robin; yes, it could be tougher in that Williams may regularly be good and thus a tough opponent for Amherst to have to face twice in the regular season, but Wesleyan may be poor enough to offset that. Same goes for the Maine triad.

The UAA only plays 14 games, since it's the last holdout circuit as far as postseason conference tourneys are concerned. But the CCIW plays a four-team postseason conference tournament, so any likely contender for a Pool C bid will have to play at least 15 games against fellow CCIW teams, and one of them will have to play 16 of them.

I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.

Hmmm. Now you're going by eyewitness observation, and you refused to accept my eyewitness observation back in the CCIW vs. UAA debate!

CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.

That's true -- they are opinion polls. But the d3hoops.com Top 25 has generally proven to be a fairly reliable indicator of postseason success -- either Pat or David most likely has the data on that -- and, more importantly, it's the preponderance of evidence that is important here. Take another look at the data that Q supplied; it's overwhelming how often the CCIW has had to face highly-ranked teams in the tournament as opposed to the NESCAC. Even if you allow for the fact that the d3hoops.com Top 25 is an opinion poll, that's still an avalanche of evidence.

[John Gleich]

First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice.

...Except that every conference 'cept the UAA has a conference tournament.  So that affords teams the opportunity to play the top teams in their conference thrice, not twice.

So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)

The CCIW is an 8 team league so they play 14 league games.  The UAA is also 8 (14 league games).  The WIAC is 9 (16).  Other conferences play even more league games than this if they've got two divisions and crossover.

And Amherst's choice to play non-con opponents a second time is laudible... but that doesn't expose them to a full slate of games against all the conference teams.  Having home and away series against league foes can make immense amounts of difference.  UW Whitewater and UW Platteville both lost in away games at Oshkosh and Eau Claire respectively, in the same night last season, by 1 and 5 points.  They'd won these games by 11 and 31 on their home courts in December, and it cost them a chance at a share of the conference championship and the best seeding in the conference tournament.  Platteville and Whitewater played 3 times, as did Platteville and Point.  Had these 3 teams not lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, Whitewater and Platteville would have met up in the Sweet 16 and the winner could have met up with Stevens Point in the Elite 8 (Point would have met Puget Sound in the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in 6 years.

Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.

Where's the evidence of this?  I'm not necessarily saying it isn't true... but unless these teams beat non-regional opponents, they might just be beating up on the other regional lightweights.

[John Gleich]

Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games...  conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.

[Hugenerd]

I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.

Hmmm. Now you're going by eyewitness observation, and you refused to accept my eyewitness observation back in the CCIW vs. UAA debate!

CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.

That's true -- they are opinion polls. But the d3hoops.com Top 25 has generally proven to be a fairly reliable indicator of postseason success -- either Pat or David most likely has the data on that -- and, more importantly, it's the preponderance of evidence that is important here. Take another look at the data that Q supplied; it's overwhelming how often the CCIW has had to face highly-ranked teams in the tournament as opposed to the NESCAC. Even if you allow for the fact that the d3hoops.com Top 25 is an opinion poll, that's still an avalanche of evidence.

First off, I have watched both CCIW and NESCAC teams play online this year (I have not seen any NESCAC teams in person).  Secondly, that comment was also based on looking at other early season results.

With regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all.  I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season.  However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet.  I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success.  You seem to have missed this part of my comment:

I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.  In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year.   CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.  CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).

My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year.  Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference this year yet.

[Gregory Sager]

With regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all.  I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season.  However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet.  I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success.  You seem to have missed this part of my comment:

I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.  In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year.   CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.  CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).

My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year.  Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference this year yet.

Thanks for clearing that up, although I thought that you were using this season to draw larger inferences, a la the CCIW vs. UAA argument. I wouldn't hang an argument of any sort upon a poll that is taken before the holidays; I've gone on record numerous times as dismissing their accuracy and thus their importance.

[Hugenerd]

With regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all.  I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season.  However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet.  I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success.  You seem to have missed this part of my comment:

I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.  In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year.   CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.  CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).

My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year.  Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference this year yet.

Thanks for clearing that up, although I thought that you were using this season to draw larger inferences, a la the CCIW vs. UAA argument. I wouldn't hang an argument of any sort upon a poll that is taken before the holidays; I've gone on record numerous times as dismissing their accuracy and thus their importance.

No problem, I was simply trying to convey my impressions of the NESCAC early this year.  They have been one of the most impressive conferences early on, especially among their top 5-6 teams (we know that I tend to value the top of the conference more than the bottom from past discussions).

[Pat Coleman]

Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games...  conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.

This would actually be 16.

[John Gleich]

Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games...  conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.

This would actually be 16.

Good thing I didn't major in math or anything.... oh, wait...

That make sense, of course.  Double RR in 6 league division means 5x2 games vs. those teams and 6x1 vs. the other division. 

Thanks for setting me straight!

[Greek Tragedy]

Or the MIAC where they play 20, PLUS conference tourney.  If you are 3-6, you could potentially play 3 more games.

The MWC and the NathCon play uneven schedules, they don't play everyone twice.

[David Collinge]

The MWC and the NathCon play uneven schedules, they don't play everyone twice.

Same goes for the NCAC, although that will change to a full (9 team) double-round-robin next year with the departure of Earlham.

[magicman]

Also the SUNYAC. 10 teams, double RR =18 games plus 3 conference tourney games, as top 8 make the playoffs. 21 games for the tournament champion and runner up.