2015 POOL C

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Yes, MIT E-town and TMC with nearly identical resumes, but MIT is the benefactor of the larger region and will get in over both.

MIT, Etown, TMC in that order of how they get selected/if they get selected.

[SandyMac]

What time is the selection show today?

[blooter442]

What time is the selection show today?

1:30 EST.

[PaulNewman]

Obviously doesn't matter because the number is the number and it looks fantastic but for me Tufts' SoS is a bit inflated.

I assumed mostly because of away at Endicott (unexpected superb W%) and away at MIT (another huge W%), but they didn't play MIT.  Away at Amherst only other big plus SoS game for Tufts and then did well with having Brandeis but as a home game and I guess also Gordon at home.

Here's Tufts' non-conference schedule -- away at Endicott, away at Plymouth State, Brandeis at home, Gordon at home, away at Keene State.

[Mr.Right]

Like you said the # is the # but alot of schools SOS is inflated. You think Messiah at close to.600 is not inflated?

[lastguyoffthebench]

Thankfully Rutgers-Camden earned the AQ:

Tufts:        .656 / .623 SOS / 4-3-1 SOS   (2-3-1 vs tourney teams; assuming Middlebury makes it)

Camden:   .636 / .625 SOS / 5-3-2 SOS  (2-3-1 vs tourney teams; assuming Stockton does not make it)


Still believe that Tufts is safe...

Haverford, IMO should be the #1 team in the country at this point...  8-2 RvR, losses early in season to Stevens, Wesleyan, MSU...  Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585...  Would not shock me if they were to earn a first round bye.

[PaulNewman]

Yep...some really inflated and some really deflated.  Should be great for summer doldrums debate. 

Can't argue with Haverford.  One thing every future opponent should know by now is DO NOT FOUL THEM anywhere within 25 yards because that Corkery kid is lethal.

I feel bad too for the Endicotts of the world who help teams like Tufts get rich on their W% while they have no shot at a bid.

[PaulNewman]

Haverford,  Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585..

LGOTB, this is actually a great example of how flawed the method is.  Haverford's schedule is MUCH stronger than Tufts.  Not even in the same ballpark IMHO, and yet Tufts is ~.40 higher.

[lastguyoffthebench]

Meaningless data:

MASSEY RATINGS POOL C PREDICTIONS

NE: Amherst, Middlebury, MIT, Tufts, Endicott
East: Hobart, Brockport St, Plattsburgh St, Cortland St.
Mid-Atlantic:  F&M, E-town, Messiah, Dickinson
South-Atlantic:  MSU, Rowan, Stockton
Great Lakes:  Thomas More, OWU
North:
Central:
West: 

Teams out, in order:  RPI, CMU, CWRU, Bridgewater, ECSU, JHU, Wheaton ILL, Skidmore, DePauw, Chicago, Macalester, Colorado.

*Williams, Wesleyan, Connecticut (highly ranked, but for purposes of geography and conference representation, I dropped them off).

[PaulNewman]

At a minimum they should correct for penalizing home teams on SoS who have earned home conference tourney games.  That's just so counter-intuitive.

[Ryan Harmanis]

Is it, though?  I agree with the general premise that the SOS metric is not accurate as constructed, although I'd still want confirmation of what actual home-field advantage looks like.  But if you're playing at home in the conference tournament, that in theory gives you a higher percentage of winning the AQ, correct?  So I don't think it necessarily follows that you should get the benefit of home games in the conference tournament and get preferential treatment on the SOS metric.  It's really the same argument for playing in a weak conference - if playing at home (or in a weak conference) gives you a higher probability of the AQ, that offsets the punishment you might get on the SOS metric.  IMO it just all comes back to finding the true numbers that we should be using to calculate SOS.

I get what you're saying that it seems odd to "punish" teams for winning their conference, but the entire point of SOS is to balance out your record against your schedule. I'm less convinced that the solution is somehow nullifying the multipliers for conference tournament games rather than just changing the multipliers altogether to solve the fundamental problem that there isn't this big of a difference in home and away games.

[PaulNewman]

Is it, though?  I agree with the general premise that the SOS metric is not accurate as constructed, although I'd still want confirmation of what actual home-field advantage looks like.  But if you're playing at home in the conference tournament, that in theory gives you a higher percentage of winning the AQ, correct?  So I don't think it necessarily follows that you should get the benefit of home games in the conference tournament and get preferential treatment on the SOS metric.  It's really the same argument for playing in a weak conference - if playing at home (or in a weak conference) gives you a higher probability of the AQ, that offsets the punishment you might get on the SOS metric.  IMO it just all comes back to finding the true numbers that we should be using to calculate SOS.

I get what you're saying that it seems odd to "punish" teams for winning their conference, but the entire point of SOS is to balance out your record against your schedule. I'm less convinced that the solution is somehow nullifying the multipliers for conference tournament games rather than just changing the multipliers altogether to solve the fundamental problem that there isn't this big of a difference in home and away games.

I don't think you should get preferential treatment but I do believe a team that has won home field on the merits certainly should not suffer a penalty (negative multiplier) for that. 

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

At a minimum they should correct for penalizing home teams on SoS who have earned home conference tourney games.  That's just so counter-intuitive.

Yes. A good example of this is TMC losing to unranked Westminster in their conference semi-final. They don't get punished in the RvR but if a team like Lycomng would have lost to Messiah they would have got a loss in the RvR which could have hurt them when being compared for an at-large or Dickinson losing tacks on another Loss in the RvR column which makes them look worse in that category and they lost  in the loss column as well compared to TMC who just picked up a Loss but stayed 1-1-1 RvR...system is flawed in that regard. It's almost better to play road games in conference tournaments because if you lose it could be a double hit for some teams but if you win it can add to RvR and give you the SOS multiplier depending on your opponent.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Or teams can host and take care of business at home and not have to worry but it makes for a good debate none the less.  But there definitely is some room for complaints in that regard. Etown doesn't get punished too hard but imagine if Scranton was ranked regionally. That would have added another loss in the loss column and the RvR loss column as well. A double whammy!   

[Ryan Harmanis]

So maybe just treat it as neutral for the home team (no multiplier) while still giving the away team the multiplier?