|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 8, 2011 22:30:28 GMT -5
Emory has the easiest road to the final four. I will go with Emory, Wash U, Calvin and Juniata. Not a stretch when it comes to a guess, but I think that's the way it will play out. Then again Calvin doesn't have an easy path. Calvin and Wittenberg played a real barn-burner of a 5 setter earlier this year, and are aligned for a rematch not only of that match, but the regional final from last year.
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Nov 8, 2011 22:31:15 GMT -5
Juniata seems down a bit, do you think they take down Eastern in the regionals?
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 9, 2011 7:46:06 GMT -5
Juniata is young, but I think they'll be fine. They have played an incredibly tough schedule and will be prepared. Eastern hasn't really played many top teams. I think they may struggle with Hiram, as they are a big and very physical team. Mt Union is the dark horse in that region for sure.
The Calvin region could get nasty, as it includes Otternein, who beats Wittenberg fairly recently, and Heidelberg, who has had a strong year. I think WashU being at home for the entirety of the post-season is a bit unfair, but I don't know that anyone else bid to host in that region. And I wouldn't count Christopher Newport out in the Southern region. They have a chance to be the spoiler.
|
|
|
Post by d3follower on Nov 9, 2011 14:50:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nonsense on Nov 9, 2011 14:53:17 GMT -5
You have to understand that the AVCA regions and the NCAA regions are not exactly alike, thus Wash U could be in one region for the AVCA purposes and in a different one when it comes to the NCAA. As previously mentioned, to fill regions or more importantly, to limit travel as a whole, they can move teams. There are no AVCA regions as far as I know. It is a national poll of coaches opinions. The NCAA has sports regions (West, MidWest, MidAtlantic, Central, Great Lakes, South, New York, New England). Then, each of these regions are geographically linked to one other region so those matches would count as in region for both opponents. I think West and South are. They do for rankings and awards. Different than NCAA regions.
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Nov 9, 2011 15:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tmb on Nov 10, 2011 9:30:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 10, 2011 10:09:54 GMT -5
You want to hear a really dumb complaint I have? It would be handy if the Regional Websites, when they give the times of matches, would indicate which time zone they are in. I can guess most of them, but it's a little thing that would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Nov 10, 2011 10:39:57 GMT -5
So, Eastern is hosting, but at another school.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Nov 10, 2011 10:40:46 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and don't forget the Calvin region starts today at 12:30
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 10, 2011 12:30:47 GMT -5
I think, with some reworking, there are other teams in the RPI/Pablo top grouping that could have gotten in. Case Western (it's just as far for them to go to Springfield or Neumann as it is for Mt Union and Hiram) at #27 in Pablo (a good approximation for strength of schedule and NCAA tournament entrance). Middlebury is at #41, ahead of them were Coast Guard and Case Western, both of which will be staying home. It just doesn't seem right for a disproportionate number of teams to come from one conference. Or even one region. New England got 10 teams into the tournament. From a purely objective standpoint, they are one of the weakest regions. And they got 10 bids. It's not bashing. It's true. I think it is an interesting time of year too! Not quite hoops action fill out your bracket but d3 is growing in interest. Just based on this thread, last year it went for about 2 pages and disappeared early. This year it stuck around all year. Thinking off the top of my head, if I wanted to position myself for the post-season, I'd need to play the best teams possible to be forced to improve. Juniata is from a region with mostly AQ's but they travel nationally and played ranked opponents from every region to be ready. The UAA is situation unique unto itself in that all of those team travel nationally. I believe the criteria for regional rankings and the NCAA at large selection are some combination of: Win/loss % in region Strength of Schedule Roughly 2/3 opponents win % (you control who you schedule) 1/3 opponents opponents win % (you can't control who they schedule) Win/Loss vs regionally ranked opponents won/loss vs all d3 won/loss vs all ranked opponents What does a coach do with their non-conference schedule? I'd say, hit delete on the 10,000 tournament scheduling emails. Keep an eye on the 2012 tournament tab on D3VB and see who is commiting to each tournament. Find one with ranked opponents at it and go play them. Clearly there is a sentiment that some regions are stronger or weaker than others but the numbers are blind. Go play ranked opponents in ANY region and put up some #'s...maybe New York or New England will become travel destinations because they are so much weaker than the other regions that someone could go in and pick up a couple of ranked wins to build their profile . Just sayin... In actuality, the five primary criteria are: - Regional Win/Loss % - Schedule Strength (2/3 opponent's win%, 1/3 opponent's opponent's win%) - Head to Head results versus other teams regionally ranked in your own region - Common Opponent's with other teams being compared for regional rankings in your own region - Results versus all regionally ranked schools (this includes schools outside your region, that would count for your own institution..e.g., if Salisbury plays UMass-Boston, that is an in-region game for them and since both are regionally ranked, the result would show up here) The NCAA provides a nice program for comparing as many teams as possible. The committee typically starts with teams with good regional win/loss percentage and then narrows the group down with the other primary criteria. It can look at say twelve teams, then narrow down the group down to eight. I was also a believer of picking up ranked wins, but in Region. When you're building a resume and going for National At-Large bids, those out of region wins and losses do get discussed even though they won't show up in the Regional Ranked win/loss category. But on paper, they don't help you get noticed. I always felt that 5-6 regionally ranked wins would get it done. In Juniata's case, they assume they will win their conference each year and play a schedule to prepare them for NCAA advancement. Christopher Newport is another squad in this kind of situation with more talent than other schools in their conference. As for Middlebury versus a Case Western. Case had three regionally ranked wins (NYU, NYU, Rochester) as did Middlebury (Skidmore, Wellesley, Tufts). Middlebury had a regional win-loss advantage (18-6 vs. 19-8) in the last ranking, and a schedule strength edge (.635 versus .599). With no common opponent differences or head-to-head with each other. Middlebury looks better in the primary criteria than Case. 3 equal categories (ranked wins, Head-to-Head, Common Opponent), 2 edges (schedule strength and regional win%) over Case.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 10, 2011 14:31:08 GMT -5
I am going to start a new thread for results (if I don't see one)
|
|
|
Post by d3follower on Nov 10, 2011 15:07:16 GMT -5
I think it is an interesting time of year too! Not quite hoops action fill out your bracket but d3 is growing in interest. Just based on this thread, last year it went for about 2 pages and disappeared early. This year it stuck around all year. Thinking off the top of my head, if I wanted to position myself for the post-season, I'd need to play the best teams possible to be forced to improve. Juniata is from a region with mostly AQ's but they travel nationally and played ranked opponents from every region to be ready. The UAA is situation unique unto itself in that all of those team travel nationally. I believe the criteria for regional rankings and the NCAA at large selection are some combination of: Win/loss % in region Strength of Schedule Roughly 2/3 opponents win % (you control who you schedule) 1/3 opponents opponents win % (you can't control who they schedule) Win/Loss vs regionally ranked opponents won/loss vs all d3 won/loss vs all ranked opponents What does a coach do with their non-conference schedule? I'd say, hit delete on the 10,000 tournament scheduling emails. Keep an eye on the 2012 tournament tab on D3VB and see who is commiting to each tournament. Find one with ranked opponents at it and go play them. Clearly there is a sentiment that some regions are stronger or weaker than others but the numbers are blind. Go play ranked opponents in ANY region and put up some #'s...maybe New York or New England will become travel destinations because they are so much weaker than the other regions that someone could go in and pick up a couple of ranked wins to build their profile . Just sayin... In actuality, the five primary criteria are: - Regional Win/Loss % - Schedule Strength (2/3 opponent's win%, 1/3 opponent's opponent's win%) - Head to Head results versus other teams regionally ranked in your own region - Common Opponent's with other teams being compared for regional rankings in your own region - Results versus all regionally ranked schools (this includes schools outside your region, that would count for your own institution..e.g., if Salisbury plays UMass-Boston, that is an in-region game for them and since both are regionally ranked, the result would show up here) The NCAA provides a nice program for comparing as many teams as possible. The committee typically starts with teams with good regional win/loss percentage and then narrows the group down with the other primary criteria. It can look at say twelve teams, then narrow down the group down to eight. I was also a believer of picking up ranked wins, but in Region. When you're building a resume and going for National At-Large bids, those out of region wins and losses do get discussed even though they won't show up in the Regional Ranked win/loss category. But on paper, they don't help you get noticed. I always felt that 5-6 regionally ranked wins would get it done. In Juniata's case, they assume they will win their conference each year and play a schedule to prepare them for NCAA advancement. Christopher Newport is another squad in this kind of situation with more talent than other schools in their conference. As for Middlebury versus a Case Western. Case had three regionally ranked wins (NYU, NYU, Rochester) as did Middlebury (Skidmore, Wellesley, Tufts). Middlebury had a regional win-loss advantage (18-6 vs. 19-8) in the last ranking, and a schedule strength edge (.635 versus .599). With no common opponent differences or head-to-head with each other. Middlebury looks better in the primary criteria than Case. 3 equal categories (ranked wins, Head-to-Head, Common Opponent), 2 edges (schedule strength and regional win%) over Case. Middlebury had four wins. Amherst was the other. Once ranked, always ranked. Your records and SOS numbers also don't reflect the results of conference tournaments. The wording is results against regionally ranked teams. It's not wins or winning percentage. Winning helps, of course, but results is open to interpretation. So, you say Case had three wins, but that's in 13 matches against ranked teams. Case's 10 ranked losses were to Hope, Mount, Ott, Hiram, Chicago 2x, Emory 2x, Berg and WashU. Only six of the 22 at-large teams had six or more wins over regionally ranked teams. Hiram and Chapman had two apiece. If anyone pecks around this site, you can find more of this minutia. EDIT: Some of your criteria aren't exactly correct either. These are the actual primary criteria. • Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. • Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). - Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP). - Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP). Strength of schedule will be weighted 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP. • In-region head-to-head competition. • In-region results versus common regional opponents. • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
These are the secondary criteria: • Out-of-region head-to-head competition. • Overall Division III win-loss percentage. • Results versus common non Division III opponents. • Results versus all Division III ranked teams. • Overall win-loss percentage. • Results versus all common opponents. • Overall Division III strength of schedule. • Win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season.
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 10, 2011 16:34:54 GMT -5
In actuality, the five primary criteria are: - Regional Win/Loss % - Schedule Strength (2/3 opponent's win%, 1/3 opponent's opponent's win%) - Head to Head results versus other teams regionally ranked in your own region - Common Opponent's with other teams being compared for regional rankings in your own region - Results versus all regionally ranked schools (this includes schools outside your region, that would count for your own institution..e.g., if Salisbury plays UMass-Boston, that is an in-region game for them and since both are regionally ranked, the result would show up here) The NCAA provides a nice program for comparing as many teams as possible. The committee typically starts with teams with good regional win/loss percentage and then narrows the group down with the other primary criteria. It can look at say twelve teams, then narrow down the group down to eight. I was also a believer of picking up ranked wins, but in Region. When you're building a resume and going for National At-Large bids, those out of region wins and losses do get discussed even though they won't show up in the Regional Ranked win/loss category. But on paper, they don't help you get noticed. I always felt that 5-6 regionally ranked wins would get it done. In Juniata's case, they assume they will win their conference each year and play a schedule to prepare them for NCAA advancement. Christopher Newport is another squad in this kind of situation with more talent than other schools in their conference. As for Middlebury versus a Case Western. Case had three regionally ranked wins (NYU, NYU, Rochester) as did Middlebury (Skidmore, Wellesley, Tufts). Middlebury had a regional win-loss advantage (18-6 vs. 19-8) in the last ranking, and a schedule strength edge (.635 versus .599). With no common opponent differences or head-to-head with each other. Middlebury looks better in the primary criteria than Case. 3 equal categories (ranked wins, Head-to-Head, Common Opponent), 2 edges (schedule strength and regional win%) over Case. Middlebury had four wins. Amherst was the other. Once ranked, always ranked. Your records and SOS numbers also don't reflect the results of conference tournaments. The wording is results against regionally ranked teams. It's not wins or winning percentage. Winning helps, of course, but results is open to interpretation. So, you say Case had three wins, but that's in 13 matches against ranked teams. Case's 10 ranked losses were to Hope, Mount, Ott, Hiram, Chicago 2x, Emory 2x, Berg and WashU. Only six of the 22 at-large teams had six or more wins over regionally ranked teams. Hiram and Chapman had two apiece. If anyone pecks around this site, you can find more of this minutia. EDIT: Some of your criteria aren't exactly correct either. These are the actual primary criteria. • Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. • Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition). - Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP). - Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP). Strength of schedule will be weighted 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP. • In-region head-to-head competition. • In-region results versus common regional opponents. • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
These are the secondary criteria: • Out-of-region head-to-head competition. • Overall Division III win-loss percentage. • Results versus common non Division III opponents. • Results versus all Division III ranked teams. • Overall win-loss percentage. • Results versus all common opponents. • Overall Division III strength of schedule. • Win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season.Ricky, you quote the language perfectly. Going into more detail on the actual process maybe would have been better as a second step on my end. Good catch on Amherst, I missed that. I will stick with feeling good on selection day with 5-6 regionally ranked wins.
|
|
|
Post by Momof2D3 on Nov 11, 2011 11:21:55 GMT -5
|
|