2021 NCAA Regional Rankings

[maineman]

The Volleyball regional rankings are totally messed up.   One example in one region: School A, 19-0, is not ranked.  School B, 9-10, is.   I don't care what the difference in SOS is, you don't belong in a ranking if you can't beat half the teams you play (and especially when there's an undefeated team that isn't ranked).

where can you find the volleyball rankings?

[Gregory Sager]

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d3/regional-rankings

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You all may find this podcast helpful to understand a few things about where the alphabetical idea came from AND an idea to improve on the idea (hint: pre-rankings; it's been endorsed by several that I have talked to on different committees).

https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2020-21/bonus-reg-rankings

[Christan Shirk]

REGION I - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Amherst	11-2-1	0.667	7-1-1	11-2-1	Y
2.	Tufts	10-1-2	0.622	5-1-1	10-1-2	Y
3.	Connecticut College	11-3-0	0.584	3-2-0	11-3-0	Y
4.	Wesleyan	10-2-2	0.566	2-2-2	10-2-2	Y
5.	Middlebury	9-3-2	0.588	1-2-1	9-3-2	Y
6.	Bowdoin	9-4-1	0.561	2-2-1	9-4-1	--
7.	Williams	7-5-2	0.601	2-4-1	7-5-2	Y
8.	Mass-Boston	12-2-1	0.542	1-1-0	12-2-1	Y
9.	St. Joseph's (Maine)	12-1-2	0.537	1-1-1	12-1-2	Y

REGION II - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	MIT	13-2-1	0.541	4-1-0	13-2-1	Y
2.	Coast Guard	10-4-1	0.573	2-4-0	10-4-1	Y
3.	Babson	8-4-3	0.573	2-4-1	8-4-3	Y
4.	WPI	8-4-3	0.593	1-3-2	8-4-3	Y
5.	Springfield	9-5-0	0.561	3-5-0	9-5-0	Y
6.	Wheaton (Mass.)	10-5-0	0.568	2-4-0	10-5-0	Y

REGION III - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Cortland State	14-2-1	0.570	3-1-1	14-2-1	Y
2.	Rochester	8-2-3	0.591	4-2-1	8-2-3	Y
3.	Vassar	10-2-2	0.564	2-1-0	10-2-2	Y
4.	Oneonta State	10-3-2	0.586	2-2-2	10-3-2	Y
5.	RPI	10-3-2	0.593	0-3-1	10-3-2	Y
6.	New Paltz State	12-4-0	0.574	1-4-0	12-4-0	Y
7.	RIT	9-3-3	0.563	2-2-0	9-3-3	Y
8.	Buffalo State	12-5-1	0.540	1-1-1	12-5-1

REGION IV - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Montclair State	15-1-1	0.569	4-1-0	15-1-1	Y
2.	New York University	9-3-1	0.642	5-2-0	9-3-1	Y
3.	Rowan	9-3-1	0.592	2-2-0	9-3-1	Y
4.	Stevens	8-6-1	0.610	2-4-1	8-6-1	Y
5.	Rutgers-Newark	11-4-3	0.537	2-2-0	11-4-3	Y
6.	Kean	10-4-1	0.535	1-3-0	10-4-1	--
7.	Misericordia	10-3-0	0.508	2-0-0	10-3-0	Y

REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Messiah	13-0-2	0.580	5-0-0	13-0-2	Y
2.	Johns Hopkins	11-2-2	0.558	4-1-0	11-2-2	Y
3.	Washington College	10-4-1	0.615	3-3-1	10-4-1	Y
4.	Swarthmore	10-3-2	0.577	3-2-2	10-3-2	Y
5.	Gettysburg	10-3-2	0.588	2-2-2	10-3-2	Y
6.	Franklin and Marshall	12-2-1	0.581	1-2-1	12-2-1	Y
7.	Alvernia	12-4-0	0.578	1-2-0	12-4-0	Y
8.	Lebanon Valley	12-3-0	0.540	2-3-0	12-3-0	--

[Christan Shirk]

REGION VI - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Washington and Lee	12-0-2	0.573	5-0-1	12-0-2	Y
2.	Emory	8-1-4	0.647	4-0-4	8-1-4	Y
3.	Christopher Newport	7-4-2	0.664	4-4-2	7-4-2	Y
4.	Mary Washington	8-3-2	0.599	2-2-0	8-3-2	Y
5.	Lynchburg	10-4-1	0.589	2-4-1	10-4-1	Y
6.	Roanoke	8-3-5	0.573	0-2-3	8-3-5	--
7.	Covenant	7-3-3	0.562	0-2-2	8-3-3	Y
8.	Randolph-Macon	8-3-3	0.539	0-2-0	9-3-3	Y

REGION VII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Ohio Wesleyan	12-1-2	0.609	4-1-1	12-1-2	Y
2.	Otterbein	12-0-3	0.563	3-0-3	12-0-3	Y
3.	Kenyon	12-1-1	0.553	3-1-1	12-1-1	Y
4.	John Carroll	8-3-4	0.621	4-2-3	8-3-4	Y
5.	Denison	9-4-1	0.579	1-3-1	9-4-1	Y
6.	Case Western Reserve	6-5-2	0.610	1-5-2	6-5-2	Y
7.	Ohio Northern	7-6-2	0.598	2-3-2	9-6-2	--
8.	Hanover	11-4-1	0.539	0-2-1	11-4-1	Y
9.	Wilmington	11-1-3	0.493	3-1-0	11-1-3	--
10.	Mount Union	9-4-2	0.538	1-2-2	9-4-2	Y

REGION VIII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Chicago	10-4-1	0.671	7-3-1	10-4-1	Y
2.	Washington U.	9-2-1	0.642	2-2-1	9-2-1	Y
3.	North Park	12-4-0	0.596	4-4-0	12-4-0	Y
4.	Calvin	12-2-2	0.556	3-2-1	14-2-2	--
5.	Hope	10-3-2	0.561	3-2-0	10-3-2	Y
6.	North Central (Ill.)	14-1-1	0.546	2-1-0	14-1-1	Y
7.	Carthage	11-5-2	0.598	3-5-0	11-5-2	Y
8.	Wheaton (Ill.)	8-5-1	0.548	2-2-0	8-5-1	Y

REGION IX - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	St. Olaf	14-1-1	0.566	5-1-1	14-1-1	Y
2.	Gustavus Adolphus	12-4-0	0.594	2-4-0	12-4-0	Y
3.	Carleton	10-3-2	0.525	1-1-1	10-3-2	Y
4.	Luther	9-6-2	0.587	0-5-0	9-6-2	Y
5.	UW-Platteville	12-3-2	0.508	1-2-1	12-3-2	Y
6.	Loras	9-6-2	0.533	2-2-1	9-6-2	--
7.	St. John's	7-5-1	0.545	1-2-0	7-6-1	Y
8.	Dubuque	12-3-1	0.494	2-2-0	12-3-1	--

REGION X - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Trinity (Texas)	14-0-1	0.581	4-0-0	14-0-1	Y
2.	Mary Hardin-Baylor	11-3-0	0.557	0-3-0	11-3-0	Y
3.	Colorado College	10-3-1	0.534	2-1-1	10-3-1	Y
4.	Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	12-0-2	0.518	1-0-0	12-1-2	Y
5.	Willamette	10-3-1	0.544	1-1-0	10-3-1	Y
6.	Southwestern	9-2-4	0.539	0-2-1	9-2-4	Y
7.	Redlands	12-2-1	0.521	0-1-0	12-2-1	Y

[College Soccer Observer]

Trying to figure out how Middlebury is only 1-2-1 vs ranked teams when Wesleyan and Bowdoin are both ranked and Midd beat both of them. Obviously the Williams game is not included since it happened last night.

[d4_Pace]

They have the column here that shows Bowdoin wasn't ranked last week so they are not being counted in the RVR used to calculate this weeks rankings. Welcome to the logic madness.

[ConnAlum]

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

[Gregory Sager]

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Disagree. Hope's rewarded for having played a noticeably tougher schedule than North Central. There's a distinct gap in SOS that favors Hope, and SOS is obviously a criterion that the committees prize highly. And, while the Cardinals have a better winning percentage against RRO, the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO (which, at .600, isn't bad for the Flying Dutchmen, either). Hope is also better than NCC with regard to another criterion, record vs. common opponents (Hope 3-0, NCC 2-1).

Hope is a better team than North Central as well, and although that doesn't matter in the strict sense, it's nevertheless reassuring in terms of the rankings matching up to the actual comparative abilities of the teams in question.

[Flying Weasel]

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings. 

[Gregory Sager]

Exactly. Thanks for expanding on that item.

[ConnAlum]

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings.

Thanks for the clarification. Would give +k if I could.

[Hopkins92]

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings.

Thanks for the clarification. Would give +k if I could.

Covered it for ya.

[PaulNewman]

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference. 

[Ron Boerger]

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process.