|
|
Post by magicpanther on Nov 8, 2021 20:38:53 GMT -5
So the Warburg region has the number 3, 4, 7, 17, 19 and 22 ranked teams in the coaches poll? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachk2 on Nov 8, 2021 21:22:51 GMT -5
Interesting comments. Also the reseeding 🏐 at the Final 8 makes the balance of the Final bracket balanced ⚖️ so two strong teams don’t have to meet in the QF. 🤔 Glad I live 5 minutes away from WUSTL Field House for spectator purposes. 👀 It makes me a little sad that WashU did not make the field this year. That has to be a first in a VERY long time. I have many fond memories of rivalry matches against them, including playing them for the National Championship. I do not, however, miss their Christmas-color, red and green gym.... NCAA DIII tournament started in 1981 (I believe) and Wash U has played in every one since 1987. 😳 Truly an unfortunate end to a very significant run. 😬 |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Nov 9, 2021 8:01:39 GMT -5
So the Warburg region has the number 3, 4, 7, 17, 19 and 22 ranked teams in the coaches poll? Interesting. To be fair, the coaches' poll for DIII is not always the truest indication of the best teams (consider that Southwestern and Bethel are ranked in the top 20 but were "bubble" teams to make it into the field)...but always seems like there is one region that could be the "group of death." Due to this tournament being more geographically regionalized....NCAA being $$$ conscious. |
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 9, 2021 8:19:16 GMT -5
The spreadsheet I use to predict the selections uses 5 criteria:
* D3 W/L %
* SOS
* Ranked W/L %
* Wins versus top 100 schools (my QWI Quality win index tracker)
* Ranked "results" (a rating for the value of their ranked wins and losses)
each of these values is on a 0-1 scale
you can apply a weighting factor to each one for a given scenario, and after a bunch of different cases you have a consensus.
note on QWI versus ranked: there were 31 top 100 schools who did not get ranked. So it is a unique set.
So I went back to try and reverse engineer the 20 picks. The key factors fell out quickly.
I got 19 for 20 with a scenario of D3 W/L %(1.00) and SOS(1.50) with the others set to zero
variations on those 2 criteria would get 17 or 18
As soon as I include QWI rating or ranked results rating to simulate some human thought and consideration of a school's overall record
the projections dropped to the 12 to 14 range!
So it looks like all they cared about were your D3 win % and SOS. Which is disappointing. The one school missed in that 19, Ithaca. It had Denison instead.
There is no explaining Ithaca over Denison(or over Muskingum, or over Wisconsin-Oshkosh)other than a special bid to Ithaca for finishing over .500 against the toughest schedule in NE/NY regions. A geography pick?
|
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 9, 2021 9:05:18 GMT -5
The spreadsheet I use to predict the selections uses 5 criteria: * D3 W/L % * SOS * Ranked W/L % * Wins versus top 100 schools (my QWI Quality win index tracker) * Ranked "results" (a rating for the value of their ranked wins and losses) each of these values is on a 0-1 scale you can apply a weighting factor to each one for a given scenario, and after a bunch of different cases you have a consensus. note on QWI versus ranked: there were 31 top 100 schools who did not get ranked. So it is a unique set. So I went back to try and reverse engineer the 20 picks. The key factors fell out quickly. I got 19 for 20 with a scenario of D3 W/L %(1.00) and SOS(1.50) with the others set to zero variations on those 2 criteria would get 17 or 18 As soon as I include QWI rating or ranked results rating to simulate some human thought and consideration of a school's overall record the projections dropped to the 12 to 14 range! So it looks like all they cared about were your D3 win % and SOS. Which is disappointing. The one school missed in that 19, Ithaca. It had Denison instead. There is no explaining Ithaca over Denison(or over Muskingum, or over Wisconsin-Oshkosh)other than a special bid to Ithaca for finishing over .500 against the toughest schedule in NE/NY regions. A geography pick? The NCAA will tell you that it is not as simple as some equation. It is standardized, in a way that the Region X softball RAC should be able to look at the Region 3 Football data and come up with a similar ranking, but if it were as simple as a mathematical formula they wouldn't need coaches and administrators to serve on RACs. The process is as much art as science. And if a team has a significantly higher Win % and SOS the committee is told NOT to "drill down" to the rest of the data, so it should not be surprising at all that those two columns give you 19 of the 20. The part we couldn't know is what order they were working from. Despite Springfield beating Babson again, the new ranking still has Babson ahead of Springfield which I don't think any of us expected. For all of the speculation about Muskingum, we now know they were blocked by Denison and likely were not considered at all. Also, some of Stevenson's opponents got upgraded. Desales got back into the rankings in Region 4, and York (x2) in Region 5 which put Stevenson's record vs ranked at 11-5, and if I'm remembering this right, I think their SOS went up about 10 points. At that point I don't think they were the bubble team people expected them to be. And if they were, just by circumstance of their order in Region 5, and they ended up on the board with Denison who had .070 lower win % and a record vs ranked of 4-5, everybody would take Stevenson there. |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 9, 2021 10:16:25 GMT -5
The at-large teams that got in on average
Win % average .788 (Lowest was Ithaca at .552)
SOS Average .603 (Lowest was RIT at .557)
vs ranked win % .579 (Lowest was Ithaca at .350)
Ranked wins 7.5 (Lowest was Southwester at 4, Bethel, Otterbein and Stevens Point at 5)
Unranked losses .4 (Col, Hav, Stevenson, RIT, Chicago 1 each. Springfield had 3)
Interestingly, every team in the country with 7 ranked wins or more got in. I think I've seen that in the past too, so if there is a magic number, that would seem to be it.
Amherst had 6 ranked wins but a low SOS. Coast Guard had 6 ranked wins but a win % of just .680, but I wonder if they weren't the 21st team. Denison was under across the board, and with just 4 ranked wins it makes sense that they didn't get in. Oshkosh was 5-7 vs Ranked, but had 5 unranked losses which was more than 19 of the Pool C teams combined. Springfield had 3 but they had 2x as many ranked wins as Oshkosh. Muskingum, at 5-10 vs ranked with no unranked losses was very similar to Ithaca but with a higher win %, but I don't think they ever got on the board because of Denison, who they lost to opening weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 9, 2021 10:27:58 GMT -5
Claremont heading to Waverly, Iowa should be a fun trip... CMS is representing the west coast and I would love to see them win some match's. CMS will be trying to to show that SCIAC VB is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by jcvb12 on Nov 9, 2021 13:37:41 GMT -5
The at-large teams that got in on average Win % average .788 (Lowest was Ithaca at .552) SOS Average .603 (Lowest was RIT at .557) vs ranked win % .579 (Lowest was Ithaca at .350) Ranked wins 7.5 (Lowest was Southwester at 4, Bethel, Otterbein and Stevens Point at 5) Unranked losses .4 (Col, Hav, Stevenson, RIT, Chicago 1 each. Springfield had 3) Interestingly, every team in the country with 7 ranked wins or more got in. I think I've seen that in the past too, so if there is a magic number, that would seem to be it. Amherst had 6 ranked wins but a low SOS. Coast Guard had 6 ranked wins but a win % of just .680, but I wonder if they weren't the 21st team. Denison was under across the board, and with just 4 ranked wins it makes sense that they didn't get in. Oshkosh was 5-7 vs Ranked, but had 5 unranked losses which was more than 19 of the Pool C teams combined. Springfield had 3 but they had 2x as many ranked wins as Oshkosh. Muskingum, at 5-10 vs ranked with no unranked losses was very similar to Ithaca but with a higher win %, but I don't think they ever got on the board because of Denison, who they lost to opening weekend. Carnegie Mellon had 7 ranked wins and did not get in. |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 9, 2021 14:24:19 GMT -5
The at-large teams that got in on average Win % average .788 (Lowest was Ithaca at .552) SOS Average .603 (Lowest was RIT at .557) vs ranked win % .579 (Lowest was Ithaca at .350) Ranked wins 7.5 (Lowest was Southwester at 4, Bethel, Otterbein and Stevens Point at 5) Unranked losses .4 (Col, Hav, Stevenson, RIT, Chicago 1 each. Springfield had 3) Interestingly, every team in the country with 7 ranked wins or more got in. I think I've seen that in the past too, so if there is a magic number, that would seem to be it. Amherst had 6 ranked wins but a low SOS. Coast Guard had 6 ranked wins but a win % of just .680, but I wonder if they weren't the 21st team. Denison was under across the board, and with just 4 ranked wins it makes sense that they didn't get in. Oshkosh was 5-7 vs Ranked, but had 5 unranked losses which was more than 19 of the Pool C teams combined. Springfield had 3 but they had 2x as many ranked wins as Oshkosh. Muskingum, at 5-10 vs ranked with no unranked losses was very similar to Ithaca but with a higher win %, but I don't think they ever got on the board because of Denison, who they lost to opening weekend. Carnegie Mellon had 7 ranked wins and did not get in. Shoot. Good catch. Another one blocked by Denison. |
|
|
|
Post by magicpanther on Nov 9, 2021 17:33:11 GMT -5
Claremont heading to Waverly, Iowa should be a fun trip... CMS is representing the west coast and I would love to see them win some match's. CMS will be trying to to show that SCIAC VB is pretty good. I think CMS wins this region. I'm not sold on Wartburg but I will probably be wrong as usual. I wasn't sold on JHU in 2019 either. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Nov 9, 2021 17:49:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 9, 2021 20:21:28 GMT -5
The spreadsheet I use to predict the selections uses 5 criteria: * D3 W/L % * SOS * Ranked W/L % * Wins versus top 100 schools (my QWI Quality win index tracker) * Ranked "results" (a rating for the value of their ranked wins and losses) each of these values is on a 0-1 scale you can apply a weighting factor to each one for a given scenario, and after a bunch of different cases you have a consensus. note on QWI versus ranked: there were 31 top 100 schools who did not get ranked. So it is a unique set. So I went back to try and reverse engineer the 20 picks. The key factors fell out quickly. I got 19 for 20 with a scenario of D3 W/L %(1.00) and SOS(1.50) with the others set to zero variations on those 2 criteria would get 17 or 18 As soon as I include QWI rating or ranked results rating to simulate some human thought and consideration of a school's overall record the projections dropped to the 12 to 14 range! So it looks like all they cared about were your D3 win % and SOS. Which is disappointing. The one school missed in that 19, Ithaca. It had Denison instead. There is no explaining Ithaca over Denison(or over Muskingum, or over Wisconsin-Oshkosh)other than a special bid to Ithaca for finishing over .500 against the toughest schedule in NE/NY regions. A geography pick? The NCAA will tell you that it is not as simple as some equation. It is standardized, in a way that the Region X softball RAC should be able to look at the Region 3 Football data and come up with a similar ranking, but if it were as simple as a mathematical formula they wouldn't need coaches and administrators to serve on RACs. The process is as much art as science. And if a team has a significantly higher Win % and SOS the committee is told NOT to "drill down" to the rest of the data, so it should not be surprising at all that those two columns give you 19 of the 20. The part we couldn't know is what order they were working from. Despite Springfield beating Babson again, the new ranking still has Babson ahead of Springfield which I don't think any of us expected. For all of the speculation about Muskingum, we now know they were blocked by Denison and likely were not considered at all. Also, some of Stevenson's opponents got upgraded. Desales got back into the rankings in Region 4, and York (x2) in Region 5 which put Stevenson's record vs ranked at 11-5, and if I'm remembering this right, I think their SOS went up about 10 points. At that point I don't think they were the bubble team people expected them to be. And if they were, just by circumstance of their order in Region 5, and they ended up on the board with Denison who had .070 lower win % and a record vs ranked of 4-5, everybody would take Stevenson there. Hey NE, I love talking about this stuff. Not sure the difference between equation and standardization. But I agree it should be an art when it needs to be a art in the last 5-7 rounds, that should not be too hard. To use Win % and SOS and stop there is a formula. All the criteria should be considered. Stevenson's win % is higher than Denison since they played 6 more matches. Win % and SOS can be qualifying values, but once you get to a qualifying level, the difference of high(731) or higher(813) is not the key thing. And there is a certain amount of luck to a high SOS. Ranked results then become an important comparison. Stevenson was 11-5 versus ranked teams. Denison was 4-5 versus ranked. OK, that means Stevenson right? Nope, not if you look at it. Denison's 4-5 record is better than Stevenson's 11-5. Denison's wins: Ohio Northern(top 25), Wittenberg(top 25), Mount Union(top 50),Muskingum(top 50) Stevenson's wins: Haverford(top 100), Coast Guard(top 100), Messiah(top 100), VA Wesleyan(top 100), and 7 schools outside, some well outside, the top 100. Those 7 wins should count for nothing. The committee is supposed to notice this and select accordingly, the art part. I am less concerned with losses, but Denison's 5 were to better teams in total. They had no common opponents so can not go there. To me Denison is the easy choice. |
|
|
|
Post by coachk2 on Nov 9, 2021 20:58:01 GMT -5
You VTer’s who analyze this DIII selection info 💻 so thoroughly amaze me. 🤯 Thanks! 👍
|
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 9, 2021 21:00:33 GMT -5
The at-large teams that got in on average Win % average .788 (Lowest was Ithaca at .552) SOS Average .603 (Lowest was RIT at .557) vs ranked win % .579 (Lowest was Ithaca at .350) Ranked wins 7.5 (Lowest was Southwester at 4, Bethel, Otterbein and Stevens Point at 5) Unranked losses .4 (Col, Hav, Stevenson, RIT, Chicago 1 each. Springfield had 3) Interestingly, every team in the country with 7 ranked wins or more got in. I think I've seen that in the past too, so if there is a magic number, that would seem to be it. Amherst had 6 ranked wins but a low SOS. Coast Guard had 6 ranked wins but a win % of just .680, but I wonder if they weren't the 21st team. Denison was under across the board, and with just 4 ranked wins it makes sense that they didn't get in. Oshkosh was 5-7 vs Ranked, but had 5 unranked losses which was more than 19 of the Pool C teams combined. Springfield had 3 but they had 2x as many ranked wins as Oshkosh. Muskingum, at 5-10 vs ranked with no unranked losses was very similar to Ithaca but with a higher win %, but I don't think they ever got on the board because of Denison, who they lost to opening weekend. Unranked losses are not necessarily as bad a thing as implied. Only 69 of the top 100 teams were ranked. With the regional imbalances this is going to happen. Finishing the math means 16 schools outside the top 100 were ranked. Oshkosh's 5 'unranked' losses were to Carthage(top 50), La Crosse(top 50), Cal Lu(top 100), Wheaton(IL)(top 100), and St. Catherines(over 100). Everybody gets 1 bad day. Those schools would have been ranked in a lot of regions further east. As with the Denison/Stevenson ranked compare, Oshkosh beats Ithaca and Springfield in the same way. As you can guess by now, I think just counting ranked wins is not the way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 9, 2021 21:50:57 GMT -5
The at-large teams that got in on average Win % average .788 (Lowest was Ithaca at .552) SOS Average .603 (Lowest was RIT at .557) vs ranked win % .579 (Lowest was Ithaca at .350) Ranked wins 7.5 (Lowest was Southwester at 4, Bethel, Otterbein and Stevens Point at 5) Unranked losses .4 (Col, Hav, Stevenson, RIT, Chicago 1 each. Springfield had 3) Interestingly, every team in the country with 7 ranked wins or more got in. I think I've seen that in the past too, so if there is a magic number, that would seem to be it. Amherst had 6 ranked wins but a low SOS. Coast Guard had 6 ranked wins but a win % of just .680, but I wonder if they weren't the 21st team. Denison was under across the board, and with just 4 ranked wins it makes sense that they didn't get in. Oshkosh was 5-7 vs Ranked, but had 5 unranked losses which was more than 19 of the Pool C teams combined. Springfield had 3 but they had 2x as many ranked wins as Oshkosh. Muskingum, at 5-10 vs ranked with no unranked losses was very similar to Ithaca but with a higher win %, but I don't think they ever got on the board because of Denison, who they lost to opening weekend. Unranked losses are not necessarily as bad a thing as implied. Only 69 of the top 100 teams were ranked. With the regional imbalances this is going to happen. Finishing the math means 16 schools outside the top 100 were ranked. Oshkosh's 5 'unranked' losses were to Carthage(top 50), La Crosse(top 50), Cal Lu(top 100), Wheaton(IL)(top 100), and St. Catherines(over 100). Everybody gets 1 bad day. Those schools would have been ranked in a lot of regions further east. As with the Denison/Stevenson ranked compare, Oshkosh beats Ithaca and Springfield in the same way. As you can guess by now, I think just counting ranked wins is not the way to go. How are you defining top 100? |
|
