BB: Top Teams in West Region

[forheavendial4999]

So Richard, let's play a game.

You tell me, without considering SOS but considering the other primary selection criteria, who Pomona-Pitzer should be considered ahead of for a Pool C bid from among the following teams:

Washington, Oswego State, MIT, ECSU, Ramapo, Neumann, Amherst, Johns Hopkins, Christopher Newport.

The 7 Pool C bids (Marietta lost so they'll steal one now) that remain "up for grabs" will likely be given to teams in this group. So give me your case for them in the top 7, using primary criteria other than SOS -- which someone help me here if I leave something out, is head-to-head, results against regionally ranked, results against common regional opponents.

[OshDude]

A lot of bellyaching; not a lot of memory.

Trinity (Texas) received a Pool C bid last year with a .486 SOS. Whitworth had a .485 SOS on selection day, received a No. 3 seed, and then won the regional.

Bowdoin had the second best SOS of any regionally ranked team on selection day last year and had gone 10-9 against in-region ranked teams.

There was a column last year in which the NCAA director of the baseball championship (since moved on to D-I, but the national chair is the same) stated, in clear language, that the committee does consider the factors that go into West Region SOS numbers.

EDIT IS FOR THE QUOTE:
D3: Are lower West Region strength of schedule numbers taken into consideration on selection day?

AH: They are. Everything is taken into consideration. We have a lot of discussion about the West Region and their sometimes lower strength of schedule because of the number of teams that they have to play in conference. They have to play each of their conference opponents three or four times, and you've got a couple of teams that aren't very good that you certainly have to schedule. The travel limitations limit them from getting to as many other Division III institutions as they can, so certainly that may help or hurt their strength of schedule as well. So, the committee does take that into consideration along with everything. Not one criterion is weighed heavier or more than the other, so yes, that's being considered.

[forheavendial4999]

My usage of the word shrink is not "improper". Rather, it's quite precise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(statistics).
As for your other flippant comments, no one "schedules" Cal Tech, nor decides how many conference games they play, balanced or otherwise.

Not that I'd expect different from a use of wikipedia in a serious discussion, but it doesn't seem to fit. The first definition cited implies that there was a particular data set used for fitting, never mind whether or not it works well or not. The second definition doesn't seem to fit at all because it refers to an estimator which no one has talked about.

And then there's this. "A common idea underlying both of these meanings is the reduction in the effects of sampling variation." -- That's not what is happening here at all. A schedule is not, for statistical purposes, a sample and it is certainly not a representative sample. You're not talking about a reduction in effects of sample variation being an improvement, you're talking about it being a problem.

A more common definition of "shrink" is to make smaller...which if you move something toward .500, only applies if it was previously or would otherwise be above .500 by a greater amount, which is not necessarily true or inherent.

As for your characterization of my "flippant" comments, I just have to laugh. You seem to be implying that conference membership has no say over the makeup of their schedule, as if it's all dictated to them by the league office which for some reason sees fit to force a schedule upon school that the schools do not want.

[forheavendial4999]

A lot of bellyaching; not a lot of memory.

Trinity (Texas) received a Pool C bid last year with a .486 SOS. Whitworth had a .485 SOS on selection day, received a No. 3 seed, and then won the regional.

Bowdoin had the second best SOS of any regionally ranked team on selection day last year and had gone 10-9 against in-region ranked teams.

There was a column last year in which the NCAA director of the baseball championship (since moved on to D-I, but the national chair is the same) stated, in clear language, that the committee does consider the factors that go into West Region SOS numbers.

EDIT IS FOR THE QUOTE:
D3: Are lower West Region strength of schedule numbers taken into consideration on selection day?

AH: They are. Everything is taken into consideration. We have a lot of discussion about the West Region and their sometimes lower strength of schedule because of the number of teams that they have to play in conference. They have to play each of their conference opponents three or four times, and you've got a couple of teams that aren't very good that you certainly have to schedule. The travel limitations limit them from getting to as many other Division III institutions as they can, so certainly that may help or hurt their strength of schedule as well. So, the committee does take that into consideration along with everything. Not one criterion is weighed heavier or more than the other, so yes, that's being considered.

Thank you. I would submit that there are ways around having to play those teams 3 or 4 times, but either way that proves that the complaint is null, as to the results of the Pool C selections the last two years. A worthy team from the West will get a Pool C bid. I'm not sure there is one this year. Maybe Richard will take up my invitation to show an alternative opinion.

[Richard Hamstocks]

So Richard, let's play a game.

You tell me, without considering SOS but considering the other primary selection criteria, who Pomona-Pitzer should be considered ahead of for a Pool C bid from among the following teams:

Washington, Oswego State, MIT, ECSU, Ramapo, Neumann, Amherst, Johns Hopkins, Christopher Newport.

The 7 Pool C bids (Marietta lost so they'll steal one now) that remain "up for grabs" will likely be given to teams in this group. So give me your case for them in the top 7, using primary criteria other than SOS -- which someone help me here if I leave something out, is head-to-head, results against regionally ranked, results against common regional opponents.

I'll decline. I'm not convinced PP should be given a pool C bid. I don't know enough about those teams to make an informed decision. Luckily, I don't have to. It's a hard problem. I've only ever argued against the claim that they clearly aren't deserving because of their SOS (one that you've essentially made).
To say that the NCAA did the west region a favor by giving Trinity a pool C with a low SOS isn't consistent with your earlier arguments. They were a 34 win team. Your claim is that you are deserving if you offset your low SOS with a high WP. That's Trinity in a nutshell. You can't have it both ways.

[forheavendial4999]

So Richard, let's play a game.

You tell me, without considering SOS but considering the other primary selection criteria, who Pomona-Pitzer should be considered ahead of for a Pool C bid from among the following teams:

Washington, Oswego State, MIT, ECSU, Ramapo, Neumann, Amherst, Johns Hopkins, Christopher Newport.

The 7 Pool C bids (Marietta lost so they'll steal one now) that remain "up for grabs" will likely be given to teams in this group. So give me your case for them in the top 7, using primary criteria other than SOS -- which someone help me here if I leave something out, is head-to-head, results against regionally ranked, results against common regional opponents.

I'll decline. I'm not convinced PP should be given a pool C bid. I don't know enough about those teams to make an informed decision. Luckily, I don't have to. It's a hard problem. I've only ever argued against the claim that they clearly aren't deserving because of their SOS (one that you've essentially made).

No, I didn't make that claim, essentially or otherwise. For someone with such a pompous attitude, you have a real problem with reading comprehension.

To say that the NCAA did the west region a favor by giving Trinity a pool C with a low SOS isn't consistent with your earlier arguments. They were a 34 win team. Your claim is that you are deserving if you offset your low SOS with a high WP. That's Trinity in a nutshell. You can't have it both ways.

Ok now you're misrepresenting my statements. We're done.

Way to chicken out, by the way. You can read a schedule and a list of regional rankings as easily as I can (well maybe not quite as easily given your comprehension issues, but I think you could manage it).

My main point, really, is that it is the West region people trying to have it both ways...arguing that their SOS shouldn't matter, not really trying to do anything to improve it, expecting teams to come to them rather than to get on a bus. And then expecting people to believe that they've been somehow disadvantaged even though there's not much to suggest that West teams are really that competitive outside of a couple of programs that haven't really been hurt. I can't blame the coaches, you take any advantage you can manage to obtain. But it doesn't mean that they have much of a point. How often has a Western Pool C won the regional?

Don't bother answering...I'm sure you'd just misrepresent me again anyway. I'd rather be flippant than lacking functional literacy.

[Richard Hamstocks]

My usage of the word shrink is not "improper". Rather, it's quite precise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(statistics).
As for your other flippant comments, no one "schedules" Cal Tech, nor decides how many conference games they play, balanced or otherwise.

Not that I'd expect different from a use of wikipedia in a serious discussion, but it doesn't seem to fit. The first definition cited implies that there was a particular data set used for fitting, never mind whether or not it works well or not. The second definition doesn't seem to fit at all because it refers to an estimator which no one has talked about.

And then there's this. "A common idea underlying both of these meanings is the reduction in the effects of sampling variation." -- That's not what is happening here at all. A schedule is not, for statistical purposes, a sample and it is certainly not a representative sample. You're not talking about a reduction in effects of sample variation being an improvement, you're talking about it being a problem.

A more common definition of "shrink" is to make smaller...which if you move something toward .500, only applies if it was previously or would otherwise be above .500 by a greater amount, which is not necessarily true or inherent.

As for your characterization of my "flippant" comments, I just have to laugh. You seem to be implying that conference membership has no say over the makeup of their schedule, as if it's all dictated to them by the league office which for some reason sees fit to force a schedule upon school that the schools do not want.

I don't like referring to Wikipedia either, and that article is indeed poorly written (and clearly written by a Bayesian). The usage of shrink is the same as the conventional usage. To make smaller. In the sense of an estimator (in this case of how tough your schedule is) it means the variability from a particular value is being made smaller. As Bayesian estimates are always shrinkage estimators (towards the prior mean), a Bayesian would claim this is an improvement. Hence the language.
The longer your conference schedule, and the higher the overlap of non conference scheduling available, the closer your SOS is to .5 on average.
And a schedule is absolutely a sample (one can imagine all possible games a team could ever play as the population). The fact that its not a "representative" (of what?) sample, or I would say a random sample, is exactly my point about SOS.

[forheavendial4999]

My usage of the word shrink is not "improper". Rather, it's quite precise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(statistics).
As for your other flippant comments, no one "schedules" Cal Tech, nor decides how many conference games they play, balanced or otherwise.

Not that I'd expect different from a use of wikipedia in a serious discussion, but it doesn't seem to fit. The first definition cited implies that there was a particular data set used for fitting, never mind whether or not it works well or not. The second definition doesn't seem to fit at all because it refers to an estimator which no one has talked about.

And then there's this. "A common idea underlying both of these meanings is the reduction in the effects of sampling variation." -- That's not what is happening here at all. A schedule is not, for statistical purposes, a sample and it is certainly not a representative sample. You're not talking about a reduction in effects of sample variation being an improvement, you're talking about it being a problem.

A more common definition of "shrink" is to make smaller...which if you move something toward .500, only applies if it was previously or would otherwise be above .500 by a greater amount, which is not necessarily true or inherent.

As for your characterization of my "flippant" comments, I just have to laugh. You seem to be implying that conference membership has no say over the makeup of their schedule, as if it's all dictated to them by the league office which for some reason sees fit to force a schedule upon school that the schools do not want.

I don't like referring to Wikipedia either, and that article is indeed poorly written (and clearly written by a Bayesian). The usage of shrink is the same as the conventional usage. To make smaller. In the sense of an estimator (in this case of how tough your schedule is) it means the variability from a particular value is being made smaller. As Bayesian estimates are always shrinkage estimators (towards the prior mean), a Bayesian would claim this is an improvement. Hence the language.
The longer your conference schedule, and the higher the overlap of non conference scheduling available, the closer your SOS is to .5 on average.
And a schedule is absolutely a sample (one can imagine all possible games a team could ever play as the population). The fact that its not a "representative" (of what?) sample, or I would say a random sample, is exactly my point about SOS.

Um...great. So in defense of yourself you send a link that you admit is flawed and doesn't make the point. Awesome.

So are you claiming that the schedules are better than SOS represents them to be? That playing Caltech and CMS 4 times makes for that?

Seems like you're arguing two different things that lead to conclusions in opposite directions. And what's more, you seem to be arguing for its own sake, with no real purpose or conclusion to it...nothing you're arguing for that relates to the top teams in the West region.

And finally, as Ricky's post shows, what you're claiming is a problem really isn't because it's already being accounted for.

[Richard Hamstocks]

My usage of the word shrink is not "improper". Rather, it's quite precise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(statistics).
As for your other flippant comments, no one "schedules" Cal Tech, nor decides how many conference games they play, balanced or otherwise.

Not that I'd expect different from a use of wikipedia in a serious discussion, but it doesn't seem to fit. The first definition cited implies that there was a particular data set used for fitting, never mind whether or not it works well or not. The second definition doesn't seem to fit at all because it refers to an estimator which no one has talked about.

And then there's this. "A common idea underlying both of these meanings is the reduction in the effects of sampling variation." -- That's not what is happening here at all. A schedule is not, for statistical purposes, a sample and it is certainly not a representative sample. You're not talking about a reduction in effects of sample variation being an improvement, you're talking about it being a problem.

A more common definition of "shrink" is to make smaller...which if you move something toward .500, only applies if it was previously or would otherwise be above .500 by a greater amount, which is not necessarily true or inherent.

As for your characterization of my "flippant" comments, I just have to laugh. You seem to be implying that conference membership has no say over the makeup of their schedule, as if it's all dictated to them by the league office which for some reason sees fit to force a schedule upon school that the schools do not want.

I don't like referring to Wikipedia either, and that article is indeed poorly written (and clearly written by a Bayesian). The usage of shrink is the same as the conventional usage. To make smaller. In the sense of an estimator (in this case of how tough your schedule is) it means the variability from a particular value is being made smaller. As Bayesian estimates are always shrinkage estimators (towards the prior mean), a Bayesian would claim this is an improvement. Hence the language.
The longer your conference schedule, and the higher the overlap of non conference scheduling available, the closer your SOS is to .5 on average.
And a schedule is absolutely a sample (one can imagine all possible games a team could ever play as the population). The fact that its not a "representative" (of what?) sample, or I would say a random sample, is exactly my point about SOS.

Um...great. So are you claiming that the schedules are better than SOS represents them to be? That playing Caltech and CMS 4 times makes for that?

Seems like you're arguing two different things that lead to conclusions in opposite directions. And what's more, you seem to be arguing for its own sake, with no real purpose or conclusion to it...nothing you're arguing for that relates to the top teams in the West region.

And finally, as Ricky's post shows, what you're claiming is a problem really isn't because it's already being accounted for.

I'm saying that I don't know, and SOS isn't helping. I know that Cal Tech And CMS are bad. I don't know how good the rest of the SCIAC is. It doesn't matter to SOS either (other than the league looked good against Kean and Ithaca and Bridgewater and that's a lot of the reason SOS tends to be over .5). Maybe the national committee has this nailed down. Maybe not. I don't know what happens there. I don't see a lot of evidence supporting that they have it figured out. I don't even know what that would look like. They shipped in two teams last year, somehow they found some reason to think the west was a bad region. SOS is a primary criterion. I can't see how to use this well.

[forheavendial4999]

I'm saying that I don't know, and SOS isn't helping. I know that Cal Tech And CMS are bad. I don't know how good the rest of the SCIAC is. It doesn't matter to SOS either (other than the league looked good against Kean and Ithaca and Bridgewater and that's a lot of the reason SOS tends to be over .5). Maybe the national committee has this nailed down. Maybe not. I don't know what happens there. I don't see a lot of evidence supporting that they have it figured out. I don't even know what that would look like. They shipped in two teams last year, somehow they found some reason to think the west was a bad region. SOS is a primary criterion. I can't see how to use this well.

"A" criterion, and rightly so. Not the only one, also rightly so. What evidence do you seem that suggests they haven't figured it out? What's a case where SOS misled? Who should have gotten in last year that didn't?

Kean and Ithaca and Bridgewater don't have all winter to be outside. I thought we were all pretty clear on how that worked. I'm still waiting for a western team to go to New Jersey in May and travel around and play a bunch of road games.

[dahlby]

You will probably be waiting for quite awhile for a west region team to travel back east during May due to conference games, tourneys and a little matter called school with finals and graduation and the like. And with the weather an unknown earlier in the season, that is why eastern teams travel west and south. If I were a west region school, I probably would not risk all the travel money...committed and paid for ahead of time only to have rain, hail, sleet or snow cancellations. You do make good points though.

Interesting debate between you guys!

[forheavendial4999]

I don't think the eastern teams will go west as often either now that it's going to be counted against them if they lose to a team that may have played 15-20 more games than them and been outside all winter.

NJAC tournament was done last weekend. Some NJAC teams are still playing games. Cortland -- same thing. I don't look for any snow or sleet in May in New Jersey.

I don't look for it to happen, either. But it would only be fair as many times as teams have gone west to play them with no return game.

There's risk anywhere. Marietta went to Texas one year and almost got hit by a tornado. I guess a wildfire came close to Cal Lu. Rain is a constant concern in Oregon. There are rainouts on spring trips in Florida...you're never going to get away from that except in the Metrodome, which that option is going away as well.

[TexasBB]

I can't speak for all the teams in the West but I know UT Tyler has never traveled more than a one day bus ride. So that limits them to about a 500 mile radius. They went to Abilene to play a few years back when McMurray and Hardin Simmons hosted Marietta and a couple of other teams from out of the region but that has been it. Those games were held in late February - early March before conference play started. Once conference play starts, the opportunity for extended travel ends. 

I think many of the ASC teams have similar budgetary constraints.  The administrations of those schools will support the programs up to a point but limit travel budgets. So UT Tyler has several fill games with non-DIV III opponents during the week that are no more than 2-3 hour bus rides away.  They don't drive down to San Antonio to play Trinity because it is an all-day drive one way.  California is out of the question and forget about the northwest. Thus they hope that eastern or north western schools will travel south in the early months since the weather, although iffy at times, is a whole lot better than snow and temps in the 20s and 30s. I don't see this ever changing.

So given the distances and budgetary constraints it is what it is and the West, for the most part, is confined to three issolated islands - Texas, Southern California and the North West. The islands are too far from each other for regular play and too far from most of the other DIII Schools. So they are confined to their islands for the most part with the possible exception of 3 or 4 early non-conference games.   That is 3 or 4 games out of 40 and no one can predict how good those opponents will be. This year Tyler played Whitworth a team that did well a year ago but not so much this year. You take a gamble when you fill out a schedule for an upcoming season based on past results.

[CrashDavisD3]

SOS sucks IMO...

How about D3 winning percentage?  Yes it is not perfect but at least your winning it on the field.

[Ralph Turner]

IMHO, the best option is the one that coaches have already created, the Arizona mid-February tourney.  It is in the best interest of everyone to keep supporting it.  Three or four of the better teams from the four conferences, ASC, NWC, SCAC and SCIAC, can go and we fans can get a good idea of who is really good out of the gate.