9 thoughts on “How we see the C’s”

1. We did the same for Pool B, which was tougher than in years past.

   We’re projecting:

   Lincoln
   Bethany
   Huntingdon
   Maryville (Tenn.)

   The Scots got our last spot over Villa Julie.

2. Gordon, What was the consideration concerning Chapman? 10-4 (.714)(QOWI= 8.929) and 20-7.
   Record against CMS (1-0).

   Maryville 15-7 (.682) (QOWI = 9.455) and 20-7.
   Record against Huntingdon = (1-2)
   Record against Transy = (1-1)
   Record against Centre (SCAC Tourney Finalist) = 1-0.

   I may have answered my own question.

3. The QoWI is very low and the Winning Percentage doesn’t compensate for that.

   If CMS is ranked in the ranking we won’t see, that will help. But I don’t think it’s enough to put them over the top.

4. Additionally, if Occidental is in the invisible ranking, that hurts Chapman.

   Record against teams in the tournament (aka Mville/Center) is not in the criteria anymore.

5. A lot of people are putting disproportionate weight upon the two most obvious criteria (reg. W-L pct. and QOWI) and forgetting about the other three. So I tried to counteract that by plotting out how the secret regional rankings are likely to go, studied all of the top thirty or so Pool C candidates for likely head-to-head or common-opponent criteria, and took a whirl at coming up with my own 18 picks.

   After a few hours of giving myself eyestrain, here’s how the C’s worked out for me:

   1. York PA
   2. Cortland State
   3. Gordon
   4. Tufts
   5. Trinity TX
   6. Augustana
   7. Wooster
   8. Baruch
   9. Carroll
   10. UW-Stout
   11. Widener
   12. Calvin
   13. Trinity CT
   14. Illinois Wesleyan
   15. Washington MO
   16. Lakeland
   17. Carleton
   18. Bates

   I kept thinking that there was something wrong with Lakeland grading out so well, but in every category they kept coming up roses. The UW-LaCrosse win over Lakeland was not a regional game (they’re 275 miles apart by Mapquest, and there’s no way that Microsoft Streets & Maps can make up that sort of ground), which means that the game only becomes relevant if the committee goes to secondary criteria.

   Bates just seems to grade out better than UW-LaCrosse, and I’m not sure why you guys have them reversed. Both will likely go a lackluster 1-4 against regionally ranked opponents, and Bates (.727, 10.091) is higher than UWL in the two “popular” categories.

   What’s holding me back regarding Randolph-Macon is the atrocious record of the Jackets in games against other regionally-ranked teams. They’re borderline in the two “popular” criteria, but they’re at least 1-4 against regionally-ranked teams, and they’ll be 1-5 if Fisk holds on to that final South Region slot in the rankings. By the way, do we know for sure that RMC’s two games against Lincoln were regional? Mapquest has Ashland, VA and Lincoln University, PA as 199.3 miles apart.

   In other words, they’re almost identical in terms of specs to UW-LaCrosse, and I don’t think either grades out as well as does Bates.

6. In post #2, I was trying to anticipate who would be in the “invisible rankings”.

   With Centre’s loss, that won’t happen!

   As for Lincon-RMC, I believe that someone ran the Microsoft Maps and Streets on it and got a similar number.

7. We had Bates 0-4 against regionally ranked opponents and UW-La Crosse 3-4 (0-3 against Whitewater, 1-0 against Carleton, 1-0 against St. Thomas, 1-1 against UW-Stout). Even if Carleton isn’t in the invisible ranking, that’s 2-4. And of course, Lakeland is 0-0. Plus, I think it’s actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.

   I am positive about Macon and Lincoln and confirmed it as such with the NCAA in December. Plus you can look at the records of each on the regional rankings and see they match.

8. Yeah, that’s my bad on UWL. I mixed them up with UW-Stout — I had the Blue Devils playing Carleton and St. Thomas, not the Eagles. As I said earlier, I plead eyestrain. 🙂

   That might swing the Eagles ahead of Carleton or Bates. But I still don’t see how it swings them ahead of Lakeland, simply on the merits of a secondary criterion. Lakeland’s still head of UWL in QOWI, in-region W-L percentage, in-region common opponents, and the in-region record versus regionally-ranked opponents criterion is a matter of debate (even if you give UWL those two wins over Carleton and St. Thomas). If the committee is going by the strict wording of the handbook, which is that secondary criteria only come into play where the primary criteria result in a logjam, it never gets as far as that head-to-head game between the Muskies and Eagles in November, because Lakeland’s still ahead by a healthy margin in terms of the primaries.

   Re: Bates … if you have Williams dropping out of the Northeast Region rankings, thus depriving Bates of their sole win against a regionally-ranked team, with whom did you replace them, if I may ask? I couldn’t find a legit candidate to serve as an alternative at the bottom of that regional ranking, especially since Salem State and Rhode Island College flamed out last week as well.

9. Not sure, someone else on the ad-hoc committee handled the Northeast. MIT and Endicott, perhaps?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.