2015 POOL C

[Shooter McGavin]

Shooter, I mostly with you on this one as well, but LGOTB is a savvy soccer person and poster so you can't dismiss his reasoning out of hand and FW chimed in with a question I had.....whether their conference standing mattered.  He said NO, but then he also said he can't recall when a team that did not make its own conference playoffs got a bid.  I was going to ask that question too.  Another one is when was the last time, before Tufts last year, that a NESCAC team lost in the quarters and got a bid?  And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the quarters in the tourney and BOTH got bids?  This is a crazy year with lots of weird situations and scenarios.  AND, we thought about this in the positive direction, but could a cmte ask for permission to consider a team's downward trend in making a decision?  RPI had a fantastic first half of the year followed by a dreadful second half.  And comparisons to Messiah don't make sense to me.  Messiah IS in their conference tourney and likely to win it.

Not disclaiming LastGuys responses. I tend to agree with him a majority of the time, but RPI does not deserve a bid and they should not get a bid based off of their numbers/resume either. Then added in finishing 7/9 in conference and missing playoffs is just extra discussion that also should be included in a selection process. And it also led to a good discussion about how teams are playing upon entering the tournament which should be weighed heavier in the criteria. Just because I don't agree with his assessment this time doesn't mean I dismiss his opinions?   

[lastguyoffthebench]

Shooter is still steaming from the ridiculous putt Happy sank on the 18th...

[Shooter McGavin]

Shooter is still steaming from the ridiculous putt Happy sank on the 18th...

LOL

[Ryan Harmanis]

Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.

I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.

As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria.  I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.

We want to select teams based on the overall body of work.  If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games?  All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that.  We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament.  How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?

That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch?  If the team was playing that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ.  So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't that hot.  And how many games are we going to count?  In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%.  Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%.  So do we look at the last five games?  Last 7?  Then do we compare schedules?  Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule?  I don't know. 

Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games?  That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season.  It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season.  Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal?  They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results.  Do we let them in?  In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.

Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season.  I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.

[TennesseeJed]

Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.

I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.

As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria.  I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.

We want to select teams based on the overall body of work.  If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games?  All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that.  We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament.  How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?

That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch?  If the team was playing that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ.  So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't that hot.  And how many games are we going to count?  In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%.  Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%.  So do we look at the last five games?  Last 7?  Then do we compare schedules?  Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule?  I don't know. 

Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games?  That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season.  It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season.  Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal?  They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results.  Do we let them in?  In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.

Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season.  I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.

Agree with you.  It's hard enough to get anywhere near agreement or consensus on who's entire body of work is "best" already.     Performance metrics should be inclusive of all your games, good and bad.  Strength should be based on your entire season, not leaving it up to gaming your schedule.  Most transparent, fair and clean approach.  There's enough subjectivity in the process as it is now.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.

I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.

As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria.  I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.

We want to select teams based on the overall body of work.  If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games?  All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that.  We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament.  How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?

That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch?  If the team was playing that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ.  So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't that hot.  And how many games are we going to count?  In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%.  Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%.  So do we look at the last five games?  Last 7?  Then do we compare schedules?  Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule?  I don't know. 

Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games?  That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season.  It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season.  Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal?  They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results.  Do we let them in?  In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.

Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season.  I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.

Ryan,

Great analysis! I agree with your perspective as it is a good one. I personally believe that that shouldn't be a sole reason a team gets in over another. I think it should come in to play when we are comparing teams that have very similar resumes and are hard to distinguish between. I can't vouch for what Shooter believes exactly but I understand his logic as well and try to take the best of both sides. Lets use a hypothetical? 

So Team A is 15-2-1, loses in conf. finals, but is 6-1 in last 7 games (final being only loss), SOS of say .543 and RvR is even lets say 1-1-1....now look at Team B who is 10-4-3, loses in conf. semis, goes 2-3-2 in last 7 (includes loss in semis), SOS of say .566 and RvR is 1-2-2....now keep in mind Team A plays in a 1 or 2 bid league(AQ+maybe another) and Team B plays in a 3 or 4 bid league(AQ+1 or 2 sometimes 3). ***These are all fake/made up numbers*** Just trying to provide a scenario that probably happens in the selection process when trying to decide on teams. So who do you take? Why should the committee ignore how Team A did compared to how Team B did down the stretch? Sure you definitely shouldn't put a team in the NCAA based solely off a hot streak. But I think you should consider which team has the best chance to make a run in the tournament and how a team is playing right now or over the last 5 or 7 games can be used as an indicator for that so I get that argument.

Like I said I feel that it should be part of the criteria used...not a sole justification for one team over another though, but it cannot be completely dismissed. Shooter provided good evidence from last year's tournament teams who played poorly down the stretch, snuck in the field and pretty much wasted the bid. Emory came to mind for me last year as I mentioned earlier as well as Dickinson. Both of those teams fit into the "Team B category."

Any thoughts? This is an interesting topic and it has generated good discussion so far. Great stuff for the boards!   

[Flying Weasel]

I agree with much of what RH said.  I would add this as another reason to be very hesitant to use any "down the stretch"/last 25% criteria.  It favors top teams in weak conferences.  Some teams have their toughest games on the front end because they are in weaker conferences and can only get tougher games by scheduling that way out of conference.  Others from the stronger, deeper conferences (NESCAC, UAA, NJAC, etc.) will have a tougher home stretch.  So it's not going to be a fair comparison . . . unless you start doing the SOS of the home stretch, etc which starts making all this messier than it already is.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

All very valid points! 

[Shooter McGavin]

I still think it should count for something or matter a little bit. I understand there can be no actual criteria for it but it should be something to consider at the very least.

[lastguyoffthebench]

As long as SLU and Oneonta St take care of business.... RPI sitting somewhat comfortably for a Pool C.

Yours Truly,
Barbaro

Rutgers-Camden one slot higher than I projected at 4.  What happened to Salisbury?  Finally validated that they are overrated...

[blooter442]

Can somebody shed some insight into how the brackets are set and how many 1st/2nd round host sites per region there are? I would tend to think there are more in NE. There seems to be a pattern of the 1 seed in each region generally seeing the 5 seed, 2 seed hosting the 6 seed, etc., but I could just be making things up.

IIRC, New England had three sites last year - Brandeis, Wheaton, and Babson, and three the year before in Amherst, Williams, and Brandeis. In the past few years, Brandeis has seen mostly NE teams (plus 1 or 2 teams from NY/NJ per year), while places like Babson has seen mostly Mid-Atlantic/East teams (plus Colorado College). Thought it was interesting that two schools very close from one another saw vastly different teams from different regions.

[lastguyoffthebench]

The pressure is on Thomas More at this point... down 1-0, 40 min to go vs a team that will park the bus.

[lastguyoffthebench]

With the anticipation of teams that win their conference:

Central (1):  Washington
East (3):  Plattsburgh St, Winner of Brockport St/Cortland St, RPI (didn't make conf tourney)
Great Lakes (2):  CMU, Either DePauw or OWU.
Mid-Atlantic (3):  Lycoming, 2 of these 3 (Haverford, Dickinson, F&M)
New England (4): Amherst, Tufts, if MIT fails to win conf, if MA-Boston fails to win AQ, winner of Bowdoin/Conn, or loser of Endicott/Gordon
North (2): Macalester, UW-O
South (2): Rowan, Winner of Stockton/Camden
West (1): Colorado

[TheSwayzeTrain]

When is the last time a team got an at large bid without making their conference tournament?

[lastguyoffthebench]

Thomas More equalizer in the 86th min...