BB: Top Teams in West Region

[Richard Hamstocks]

....factors like who the hosting team is?.......

or if the coach is on the regional ranking committee...

[wildcat11]

Bro is on the regional committee but not the chair and not on the national committee.  The SCIAC has a rep too. 

[El Hombre]

Ranking of West Region Teams:
Using the NCAA Selection Criteria

Criteria:  Win-Loss % Against Regional Opponents
1.   Concordia  .800
2.   Trinity  .795
3.   Whitworth  .773
4.   Pacific  .769
5.   Texas-Tyler  .694
6.   Pomona  .676
7.   La Verne  .667
8.   Texas Lutheran  .667
9.   Texas-Dallas  .658
10.   Pac Lu / Linfield (tie)  .647

Criteria:  Strength of Schedule
1.   Chapman  .560  (Nationally #29)
2.   La Verne  .532  (Nationally #103)
3.   Hardin-Simmons .531 (Nationally #104)
4.   (tie 3) George Fox  .531 (Nationally #104)
5.   Mississippi College  (Nationally #126)
6.   Pac Lu  .523  (Nationally #134)
7.   Occidental  .511 (Nationally #192)
8.   Pomona  .510  (Nationally #202)
9.   Linfield  .509  (Nationally #209)
10.   Whittier  .506  (Nationally #220)

RPI (not listed as a criteria, but factors W/L % and SOS)
1.   Concordia  .577
2.   Trinity  .571
3.   La Verne  .566
4.   Whitworth  .564
5.   Pacific  .563
6.   Chapman  .556
7.   Pac Lu  .554
8.   Pomona  .552
9.   Texas-Tyler  .551
10.   George Fox  .545
11.   Linfield .544

Criteria:  Wins Versus Regionally Ranked Teams
1.   George Fox: 5  (overall 5 – 5)
2.   Chapman:  5  (overall 5 – 8)
3.   La Verne:  4  (overall 4 – 4)
4.   Linfield:  4 (overall 4 – 3)
5.   Pacific:  3 (overall 3 – 3)
6.   Pomona:  3  (overall 3 – 2)
7.   Whitworth:  2  (overall 2 – 2)
8.   Pac Lu:  2 (overall 2 – 2)
9.   Trinity:  1 (overall 1 – 0)
10.   Concordia:  1  (overall 1 – 1)
11.   Texas-Tyler:  1  (overall 1 – 3)

Criteria:  Head-to-Head Competition
(records in games between the 7 above potential Pool C teams)
1.   George Fox:  8 – 5
2.   Pac Lu:  5 – 6
3.   Pacific:  4 – 2
4.   Linfield:  4 – 3
5.   Chapman:  3 – 5
6.   Pomona:  2 – 1
7.   Texas-Tyler:  0 - 0

[Richard Hamstocks]

Bro is on the regional committee but not the chair and not on the national committee.  The SCIAC has a rep too.

I'm sure he was pushing Pacific's case quite hard. 

If the cats could have played like that all season we'd be having a different discussion as the regional rolled into town.

Rat...we might be able to have that conversation now...   

I'd be interested in hearing your justification for what you are hinting at might be Linfield's ranking.
Strength of schedule arguments are problematic when you play an identical schedule as 8 other teams and only outperform 4 of them...

[El Hombre]

Bro is on the regional committee but not the chair and not on the national committee.  The SCIAC has a rep too.

I'm sure he was pushing Pacific's case quite hard.  I'd be interested in hearing your justification for Linfield's ranking.
Strength of schedule arguments are problematic when you play an identical schedule as 8 other teams and only outperform 4 of them...

The NCAA states that the committee MUST adhere to the selection criteria in the handbook.  Based on that, and the NCAA selection criteria listed above, the only Pool C teams that can meet the criteria are as follows:  Trinity, Pomona, Pacific, Chapman, or Pac Lu.

I predict the following ranking:

1.  Concordia (AQ)
2.  Trinity (Pool C)
3.  Whitworth (AQ)
4.  La Verne (AQ)
5 - 6.  Pacific / Pomona / Chapman (Pool C's)

[OshDude]

You may think it's semantics, but keep in mind that the criterion is results versus regionally ranked teams, not wins necessarily. Of course wins are a very large component of those results, but it's not total wins, winning percentage or anything else alone. It's the artfully complex word "results."

[CrashDavisD3]

You may think it's semantics, but keep in mind that the criterion is results versus regionally ranked teams, not wins necessarily. Of course wins are a very large component of those results, but it's not total wins, winning percentage or anything else alone. It's the artfully complex word "results."

Nice post. You understand how it works. Not many do.....Several factors are used...

I am betting a few will be shocked when West Regionally Rankings are posted today.

I could be wrong 100% since I have no way of knowing like everyone else but I have seen stranger things in past years in Regionally rankings...It is not just a numbers game in my opinion. If it was their would be no need for committe's just computers like the BCS does for football.

[CrashDavisD3]

Keep hitting refresh...Not sure what time these will be posted today...

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/baseball/d3

[BigPoppa]

Even if a team lands at #6 in the West today, I still do not see them being selected ahead of the other Pool Cs that are awarded NATIONALLY, not regionally.

[El Hombre]

You may think it's semantics, but keep in mind that the criterion is results versus regionally ranked teams, not wins necessarily. Of course wins are a very large component of those results, but it's not total wins, winning percentage or anything else alone. It's the artfully complex word "results."

Ricky -
FYI - that was based on the details Anthony Holman gave to you in your interview with him regarding selection criteria.  His response was as follows:
. . . "We're drilling down into the numbers, looking at all of our online score reporting information. If you're a D-I school, the equivalent of the RPI. What we're looking at is their strength of schedule and their won/loss. We're drilling down to who they lost to, where they finished in their last couple of games of the season. What kind of head-to-head matchups have they had? Who did they play or compete against that was ranked? How many ranked opponents did they beat? All of those things would be considered, and we'd be looking at those things for all of the teams that are "on the board."

[Richard Hamstocks]

You may think it's semantics, but keep in mind that the criterion is results versus regionally ranked teams, not wins necessarily. Of course wins are a very large component of those results, but it's not total wins, winning percentage or anything else alone. It's the artfully complex word "results."

An excellent post. 

Nice post. You understand how it works. Not many do.....Several factors are used...

Is "understanding how it works" in the sense the one understands only when they understand that they don't understand how it works?  This is the only way that I can convince myself that I understand how it works after reading Ricky's post.  Or does anybody have a better feel for this? 
Things that I think can reasonably go into this: Total wins (advantage Linfield amongst L, P-P, Pac Lu, Pacific and Trinity) and winning percentage (advantage Pomona-Pitzer, I'm not including Trinity at 1-0 in this).  But of course Linfield only have the total wins advantage because of the volatility in the NWC and Pac Lu self-destructing. 
So how do we add context?  When the wins happen?  This seems antithetical to the rest of the criteria, but perhaps this makes Linfield's win over Pac Lu last weekend more impressive than P-P's win over a still regionally ranked Whitworth team to open the season (but doesn't help Pacific in terms of their series win over Pac Lu the week previous?).   
Where the wins happen?  Margin of victory?  I'm open to suggestions.
Hopefully wildcat11's suggestion that Linfield is a serious pool C contender isn't the case, but if so...

 

[Richard Hamstocks]

. . . "We're drilling down into the numbers, looking at all of our online score reporting information. ...where they finished in their last couple of games of the season..."

Linfield 4-6 in last 10 D3 games. 
Pacific 6-4
Chapman 8-2
Pomona-Pitzer 9-1

I know 10 is not a couple, but you get the point.

[El Hombre]

. . . "We're drilling down into the numbers, looking at all of our online score reporting information. ...where they finished in their last couple of games of the season..."

Linfield 4-6 in last 10 D3 games. 
Pacific 6-4
Chapman 8-2
Pomona-Pitzer 9-1

I know 10 is not a couple, but you get the point.

Richard -
Good point! 
This is just another "measure" or criterion the committee claims to look at, and once again it comes down one of three teams:  Pomona, Pacific, or Chapman. 

[Ralph Turner]

You may think it's semantics, but keep in mind that the criterion is results versus regionally ranked teams, not wins necessarily. Of course wins are a very large component of those results, but it's not total wins, winning percentage or anything else alone. It's the artfully complex word "results."

+1!  YES!  Results are important because the team prepared a schedule that the coach tried to anticipate strong opponents.

You must reward a team that will go out and schedule tough opponents!

[Ralph Turner]

. . . "We're drilling down into the numbers, looking at all of our online score reporting information. ...where they finished in their last couple of games of the season..."

Linfield 4-6 in last 10 D3 games. 
Pacific 6-4
Chapman 8-2
Pomona-Pitzer 9-1

I know 10 is not a couple, but you get the point.

"Last 10 games" is not a criterion!  This is great research and discussion!

Respectfully, let's keep this as true to form as we can.