Regional Rankings - Part III

[Fishman'81]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

They have a 1.00% RnK...yup that's about it lol

Kinda goes to what the RNK "metric" is worth. That should be s***-canned; it's only apparent reason for existence is to allow the committee to massage the numbers at will, and without any accountability.

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

So Plattsburgh continues to lose all but WIN to Williams, including COP. A loss to Geneseo would hurt both RNK and COP in addition to WIN. At this point, I think Pool C #3 would come down to Plattsburgh vs Stevens Point, and because Plattsburgh would take hits to both WIN and RNK, I think they lose that comparison. I've said since the moment Williams lost, it's now officially SUNYAC or bust.

Correct. But its a double edged sword. If Plattsburgh is to win Saturday, that should propel them into the #2 East. One other thing I was tossing around in my head as I was driving, this is the LAST public NCAA Ranking. While I know certain people are not allowed to say, (and just to toss a little fuel on the fire) is Endicott a cover for who they will toss in that #10 spot to propel or drop a team? I thought last weeks Top 10 was pretty accurate, does adding Endicott just leave the door open a smidgen when it comes time for selection time? We have a lot of close teams in the East who could move up/down based on one team being in/out of the final "behind closed door" poll.

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

Kinda goes to what the RNK "metric" is worth. That should be s***-canned; it's only apparent reason for existence is to allow the committee to massage the numbers at will, and without any accountability.

With all due respect, we've also proven how much the SOS metric is worth and how it is used (in certain leagues) to help elevate overall SOS. For the most part SOS has always been the final straw when all other criteria are close (more rightfully so). Who's better, a team that has a RNK of 1-0-0 or a team who has a RNK of 6-1-0? By the numbers yes, but (normally) a team who's played 7 RNK'd teams will have a stronger SOS.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Correct. But its a double edged sword. If Plattsburgh is to win Saturday, that should propel them into the #2 East. One other thing I was tossing around in my head as I was driving, this is the LAST public NCAA Ranking. While I know certain people are not allowed to say, (and just to toss a little fuel on the fire) is Endicott a cover for who they will toss in that #10 spot to propel or drop a team? I thought last weeks Top 10 was pretty accurate, does adding Endicott just leave the door open a smidgen when it comes time for selection time? We have a lot of close teams in the East who could move up/down based on one team being in/out of the final "behind closed door" poll.

Imagine Plattsburgh's RNK if they squeeze Oswego in at #10

[gknight]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

Wrote down a few before it was taken down...

1) Results vs. Ranked; 2) SOS; 3) Overall Win %

Hobart - 0.643; 0.542; 0.808
Williams - 0.600; 0.531; 0.760
Plattsburgh - 0.500; 0.520; 0.827
Trinity - 0.375; 0.523; 0.780
Babson - 0.667; 0.505; 0.759
Geneseo - 0.556; 0.533; 0.741

Isn't Babson .500 vs Ranked?

Wins vs UMB and Hobart
Losses vs UMB and Endicott

Or am I missing something?

[XYZ]

And the West sheet is up so Stevens Point is

0.375 - 0.531 - 0.778

Your RNK is wrong, as are all of them listed below.. The ****can sheet they post calculates RNK using the teams that were ranked last week and not this, and are thus utterly worthless. This lack of attention to detail is not surprising in the least.

Speaking of which, is St. Norbert still listed at 23-3-3 on ncaa.com? Someone at the Peoples Temple in Indy might want to check that.

[ABerny2]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

Your RNK is wrong, as are all of them listed below.. The ****can sheet they post calculates RNK using the teams that were ranked last week and not this, and are thus utterly worthless. This lack of attention to detail is not surprising in the least.

Speaking of which, is St. Norbert still listed at 23-3-3 on ncaa.com? Someone at the Peoples Temple in Indy might want to check that.

New spreadsheet posted by NCAA: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/ex...nkSeq=194802.0

[spwood]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

New spreadsheet posted by NCAA: http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/ex...nkSeq=194802.0

What the hell is that? Only the ranked teams are listed now? Guess the secret process actually got more secret!

One thing I did want to see.... the Plattsburgh/Williams comparison is almost a wash. Guessing the head to head is the difference.

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

What the hell is that? Only the ranked teams are listed now? Guess the secret process actually got more secret!

One thing I did want to see.... the Plattsburgh/Williams comparison is almost a wash. Guessing the head to head is the difference.

Which is NOT good as we've been discussing on FB. Just FYI a loss to Geneseo Saturday night and Williams wins every criteria (including L25) 5-1....SOS will come up some, but not enough to overtake Williams. Even with that, Plattsburgh loses COP, RNK (unless the toss in Oswego), and H2H....even if you want to go to secondary criteria, Plattsburgh (thanks to those 2 ties vs Geneseo and Brockport) gets beat there too.

The question then becomes, does the Committee compare UWSP and Williams first (which UWSP would win close), and then Williams vs Plattsburgh (which Williams would win) leaving Plattsburgh out as we assume SNC/Adrian loser wins the #1 Pool C. As Nate said and has been posted, if Plattsburgh wins...#2E seed. If Plattsburgh loses, out of the tournament (possible).

[Fishman'81]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

With all due respect, we've also proven how much the SOS metric is worth and how it is used (in certain leagues) to help elevate overall SOS. For the most part SOS has always been the final straw when all other criteria are close (more rightfully so). Who's better, a team that has a RNK of 1-0-0 or a team who has a RNK of 6-1-0? By the numbers yes, but (normally) a team who's played 7 RNK'd teams will have a stronger SOS.

IMO, Champs, SOS and win % are easily (and roughly equally) the two most salient factors in this statistical comparison. RNK has a cliff, which you never want in a statistical model, and COP is already accounted-for via win%/SOS. L25 is just silly. I can see using H2H when two teams are in a virtual tie, but H2H data is generally too sparse to be given much weight in the context of an entire season.

Said it a million times, but the AQ's are the biggest wrench in these gears. Not throwing you a bone here, but if Platty doesn't get a berth this season (for instance) it'll be a crime against reason.

[Birdwatcher]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

IMO, Champs, SOS and win % are easily (and roughly equally) the two most salient factors in this statistical comparison. RNK has a cliff, which you never want in a statistical model, and COP is already accounted-for via win%/SOS. L25 is just silly. I can see using H2H when two teams are in a virtual tie, but H2H data is generally too sparse to be given much weight in the context of an entire season.

Said it a million times, but the AQ's are the biggest wrench in these gears. Not throwing you a bone here, but if Platty doesn't get a berth this season (for instance) it'll be a crime against reason.

L25 went away this year

[Fishman'81]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

L25 went away this year

Well that's progress..! It does seem that the D-3 process is yielding more equitable results as of late, one way or the other.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

L25 went away this year

Not entirely. It's secondary criteria, if two teams are VERY close, it could come into play

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

IMO, Champs, SOS and win % are easily (and roughly equally) the two most salient factors in this statistical comparison. RNK has a cliff, which you never want in a statistical model, and COP is already accounted-for via win%/SOS. L25 is just silly. I can see using H2H when two teams are in a virtual tie, but H2H data is generally too sparse to be given much weight in the context of an entire season.

Somewhat agree to an extent, however Win % isn't as pure as you want to believe. I invite you to go over and read some of the banter that Webb and others were discussing in regards to the SOS and the advantage playing a 3-game series conference has with regards to elevated SOS. With that being said, you make "somewhat" valid points when dealing with the other criteriea, the issue is that no ONE criteria works alone. When you look at all 5 criteria together it makes much more sense. Team A has a high winning %. Okay who did they play? Well they have a decent SOS. Okay but once again who did they play? Well they played good teams, but they also played some really good (ranked) teams and did this. Okay, that's great and all, but Team B didn't play those teams, but they did play these teams (COP). How did they do against common opponents? IMO unless there is substantial data (more than "x" amount of games played), the criteria shouldn't be looked at. For example: Endicott 1-0-0 RNK....is that better then a 6-1-2?? Criteria says yes. Common opponents: is 2-0-0 better than 5-1-1? Criteria says yes. RNK : is 2-0-1 (but 2 of the 3 games vs #10 RNK and a tie vs #9, better then 5-2-0 but with wins over #1, #3 x2, #5x2, and a loss to #2 and #4? Once again we come back to SOS: is a 17-4-2 NEHC school who's played 8-9 games vs ranked teams better then a 19-2-2 MASCAC school who hasn't played one? Yes you go to OOWP but even the MASCAC schools play ECACNE teams who can have high winning%.

There is just to many questions to strictly go by SOS and Win%, and while I agree somewhat that the other criteria either run into each other or can make little to no sense, when you look at everything as a whole, it makes a little sense.

Honestly I wish we didn't have 60+ teams and we were not limited to a 25 game schedule so more teams couple play one another. Then a KRACH or RPI ranking would be much easier. Too many teams play too many different styles of schedules, both conference and non-conference.

Said it a million times, but the AQ's are the biggest wrench in these gears. Not throwing you a bone here, but if Platty doesn't get a berth this season (for instance) it'll be a crime against reason.

Again, somewhat agree, but only because unlike DI bouncyball 11 spots with 7 auto bids is just too small to get a lot of well deserving teams. Having said that, while it would be nice to see more Pool C bids awarded, only a couple times over the past 2 decades has a team receiving a Pool C bid won the title. Even more rare is 2 Pool C teams making it to the Title Game. And again, while having an 11 team tournament with no autobids would be cute and all, there are just too many teams who can maneuver their schedule to beat the math system with out going into really big detailed fair math solutions. (How everyone is up in arms about Top FBS schools playing cupcakes and padding their win totals)

[elbojpb]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

I invite you to go over and read some of the banter that Webb and others were discussing in regards to the SOS and the advantage playing a 3-game series conference has with regards to elevated SOS.

In Webb's latest bracketology thread, he basically ignores the data table and picks two semi-randomly to accompany SNC as Pool Cs.

I'll repeat what I say every year, (and agree with Fish) the autobids are great for "participation" awards, but really devalue the entire process, and make the play-in round of the tourney a farce.

P.S. - I'd put Genny in over Williams simply based on the h2h.