BB: Top Teams in West Region

[dp643]

They should fly 2 teams into this region and be done. Linfield making the region with almost half their wins against garbage teams shows that its all about $$$ and not the selection criteria. Its still pathetic any way you dice it up.

I am not sure that I see either Linfield or P-P making it. They need to be selected ahead of teams when compared to them NATIONALLY for a Pool C and the majority of the argument here is focused REGIONALLY. I think the WEST may only get 4 west teams and two flown in.

This is how it should be, but I have my doubts.

[(509)Rat]

I think you are kidding yourself if you think Linfield will be left out. All they needed was to put the Cats in at #5 so that they could justify putting them in the regional to save $$...I'd say mission accomplished by the NCAA

They couldn't have done any of this with PP at 5 and Linfield at 6. They'd either have to take both or leave both at that point.

[ILVBB]

Rat is right. There will be huge pressure from the eastern regions to limit the west to the 3 pool A's and 1 pool C. Without an economic chip the NCAA has no bargaining power to fend off the eastern regions that have greater number of Pool C teams with better "numbers."

[BigPoppa]

Either way, we have this argument every year (though I am not saying that Linfield deserves to be in), but teams that do not win their Pool A bid cannot complain about being left out. They had a chance to get in on their own, and didn't get it done.

[ILVBB]

Poppa - I don't disagree with the basic point "you need to win." But that being said; the reality of the D3 system favors the easter regions where distances are short and the number of teams is great. We had a lengthy discussion 10-days ago about why the formula for Pool C does not work in the west. It concluded with a quote from the interview that acknowledges it.

This is my pet peeve with D3; it is all about the east coast, it always has been and always will be.

[dp643]

Either way, we have this argument every year (though I am not saying that Linfield deserves to be in), but teams that do not win their Pool A bid cannot complain about being left out. They had a chance to get in on their own, and didn't get it done.

My team had no shot at getting in, so that's not my argument. Bottom line is Linfield doesn't deserve to be in either.

[Ralph Turner]

They should fly 2 teams into this region and be done. Linfield making the region with almost half their wins against garbage teams shows that its all about $$$ and not the selection criteria. Its still pathetic any way you dice it up.

This is a discussion that occurs in these debates about the teams that "you have to play" versus the teams that "you wanna play".

Pomona-Pitzer has to play Cal Tech (0-28) for four games.

Linfield has to play 4 3 games each against UPS (6-18), Whitman 5-19) and Lewis & Clark (4-20).

If you want to see how to game the system, the NESCAC divides into divisions and Trinity CT only "has to" play 12 games among its 4 division opponents.  Since there are a plethora of teams in New England, even last place Colby is 3-9 in conference/division but 16-17 overall (13-8 non-division).

This allows me to throw out the SOS numbers in the West. We are talking apples and oranges turnips.

The most relevant measure between Linfield and P-P in common opponents which are who you "wanna play".  P-P has the dramatic edge there, 10-4 versus 7-5.

[108 Stitches]

I came from a D1 world and I did not understand the issues around D3 seeding until this year. The list of teams with their SoS opened my eyes when I saw how regionally grouped  the SoS numbers were. Reading the interview that Ricky did helped me understand the thinking in this area by the NCAA and this makes sense.

Now one hand you want to reward the top teams nationally, but you also have to take into consideration the limitations of a diverse region like the West, so you would expect to have some regional teams with weaker numbers get in over teams with stronger numbers from other regions.

Obviously there is going to be some consternation and discussions around bubble teams, but something is seriously wrong if the data between the NCAA and Presto sports is so off that creates a clear difference in rankings. I am a numbers guy and data is data, and it can be traced and fixed if someone wants to dig into it and fix it. What I saw yesterday was either a) Someone has messed up their calculations or b) Blatant manipulation of the system.

I am hoping it is a) and it is fixed sometime before Sunday.

[Whatagame]

They should fly 2 teams into this region and be done. Linfield making the region with almost half their wins against garbage teams shows that its all about $$$ and not the selection criteria. Its still pathetic any way you dice it up.

This is a discussion that occurs in these debates about the teams that "you have to play" versus the teams that "you wanna play".

Pomona-Pitzer has to play Cal Tech (0-28) for four games.

Linfield has to play 4 3 games each against UPS (6-20), Whitman 5-19) and Lewis & Clark (4-20).

If you want to see how to game the system, the NESCAC divides into divisions and Trinity CT only "has to" play 12 games among its 4 division opponents.  Since there are a plethora of teams in New England, even last place Colby is 3-9 in conference/division but 16-17 overall (13-8 non-division).

This allows me to throw out the SOS numbers in the West. We are talking apples and oranges turnips.

The most relevant measure between Linfield and P-P in common opponents which are who you "wanna play".  P-P has the dramatic edge there, 10-4 versus 7-5.

I agree with your points, I only point out a minor nit.  NWC teams only have to play each other 3 times in-conference.  Some teams do however schedule non-conference games against conference foes to fill out schedule, like Linfield/PLU/G. Fox did last weekend.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks whatagame. I forgot that they dropped back to 3-game series about 2-3 years ago.

[Richard Hamstocks]

Here's my take on Strength of Schedule, motivated by arguments that people have made above. 
Linfield had 22 D3 wins. Pomona-Pitzer had 25 D3 wins, four of which were against Cal Tech.
I'm going to put them on common footing by looking at their best 22 D3 wins (so Pomona-Pitzer loses 3 of their wins against Cal Tech).
Next, I look at the winning percentage of the teams they beat. Beat a team with a higher winning percentage, we'll call it a higher quality win. 
And because Pomona-Pitzer played most of its games against SCIAC opponents, I'm docking every SCIAC team 4 wins (for Cal Tech, though one could argue that some of the NWC teams aren't much better...)
Now I'll order these winning percentages, and take partial sums.  (sum of your worst k wins as k moves from 1 to 22).
Now I'll plot these on the same graph.  It looks like this:

Pomona-Pitzer in orange and Linfield in purple.
Despite starting behind (due to the 0% winning percentage of Cal Tech for the first game), Pomona-Pitzer's quality win sum is running away from Linfield's. Using opponents winning percentage as our metric, strength of schedule is strongly favored towards Pomona-Pitzer.  Of course,  this isn't in the handbook as a primary criterion. But we can call it "drilling into the numbers".   
Given that I've only penalized SCIAC teams for playing a bad opponent (four times!), I'd guess that now bringing in opponents opponents winning percentage isn't going to help Linfield's case any (though that would be too time consuming) 
Pomona's wins are more impressive than Linfield's.

[El Hombre]

Here's my take on Strength of Schedule, motivated by arguments that people have made above. 
Linfield had 22 D3 wins. Pomona-Pitzer had 25 D3 wins, four of which were against Cal Tech.
I'm going to put them on common footing by looking at their best 22 D3 wins (so Pomona-Pitzer loses 3 of their wins against Cal Tech).
Next, I look at the winning percentage of the teams they beat. Beat a team with a higher winning percentage, we'll call it a higher quality win. 
And because Pomona-Pitzer played most of its games against SCIAC opponents, I'm docking every SCIAC team 4 wins (for Cal Tech, though one could argue that some of the NWC teams aren't much better...)
Now I'll order these winning percentages, and take partial sums.  (sum of your worst k wins as k moves from 1 to 22).
Now I'll plot these on the same graph.  It looks like this:

Pomona-Pitzer in orange and Linfield in purple.
Despite starting behind (due to the 0% winning percentage of Cal Tech for the first game), Pomona-Pitzer's quality win sum is running away from Linfield's. Using opponents winning percentage as our metric, strength of schedule is strongly favored towards Pomona-Pitzer.  Of course,  this isn't in the handbook as a primary criterion. But we can call it "drilling into the numbers".   
Given that I've only penalized SCIAC teams for playing a bad opponent (four times!), I'd guess that now bringing in opponents opponents winning percentage isn't going to help Linfield's case any (though that would be too time consuming) 
Pomona's wins are more impressive than Linfield's.

Richard -
Nice analysis!
It is just ANOTHER measure / factor / reason that Pomona earned a higher ranking than Linfield.  Some pundits will discard this since it is not part of the criteria.  However, based on the criteria, there is NO justification for such a ranking, and everyone knows it.  Despite all the calls for someone to try to explain such an outcome, not one individual has stepped up to even try!  Why is that?

Just as others are saying, I hope the NCAA fixes this so there is some faith and integrity restored to the system. 

[dp643]

Can anyone with more time than I plot the criteria of UT Tyler and Texas Lutheran versus Linfield? The ASC being way down this year really hurt the ASC chance at getting a Pool C. Historically our Opponents Winning Percentage and OO winning percentage are much higher.

[CrashDavisD3]

Can anyone with more time than I plot the criteria of UT Tyler and Texas Lutheran versus Linfield? The ASC being way down this year really hurt the ASC chance at getting a Pool C. Historically our Opponents Winning Percentage and OO winning percentage are much higher.

It once again so how flawed the process is. It should easy and simple to pick the right teams. Any measure that you use shows Linfield not being a #5 seed.

[TexasBB]

I am a UTT fan, and even though they won 33 games and were co-champs of the east division of the ASC, they do not deserve a Pool C bid. In the conference tournament they lost 3 of 5 games. Two of those games were to unranked opponents, McMurry and HSU. (However, it can be argued that all the teams that made it to the second round of the conference playoffs were really good teams.) It is too bad that a team with 33 wins is not even in the equation. If Linfield is in the discussion then UTT should be. Linfield is no more deserving in my opinion. Bottom line, neither team should be in the mix as there are others more deserving, such as P-P.



TexasBB