Waiting for the rules to change

With apologies to John Mayer:

Now if we had the power
To send our best teams off to play
They wouldn’t be around next weekend
Put the WIAC in today

So we keep waiting
Waiting on the rules to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the rules to change

It’s hard to make a difference
When they keep changing our distance
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the rules to change

Something running through my head this evening, hoping the new strength of schedule formula promised for next year does a better job.

Quality of Wins Index is going to go down in D-III basketball history with terms such as “64-team play-in” and “seven Pool C teams.” Remember, we used to have opponents’ record and opponents’ opponents’ record as part of the sanctioned selection conversation, but we got this system foisted on us a few years back. It used to be called Strength of Schedule Index, but that formula made no sense as a strength of schedule formula.

So they fixed it.

They changed the name instead of changing the formula.

“Quality of Wins” Index, you are dead to me. Good riddance!

30 thoughts on “Waiting for the rules to change

  1. I just can’t understand how the committee can hold its head high tonight knowing that some of the best teams in the nation are done for the year.

    Whatever the changes needed, we owe it to the young men and women who play to make this system more fair. When you have to stretch arguments and draw lines and calculate mileages to explain why the best teams aren’t playing, there is a tragic problem.

    SOSI? QOWI? How about we do what the D1 programs get to do? Select the AQs, then select the remaining 30 best teams in that nation, then seed the tournament nationally .

    Surely that’s the best student athlete experience. Surely it’s not that big a difference in terms of academics. Surely it’s in the best interest of the schools and D3 as a whole.

  2. Just to play devil’s advocate here. Everyone has been very critical of the NCAA selection committee and the process for selection but I have seen few better suggestions than the process we have now. The most popular suggestion is to just let a committee select the teams subjectively but how can someone do that without bias when they have not seen teams from each region play. It is an impossible task.

    There are strong arguments to be made against each team that did not make it. I do feel bad for Elmhurst who I think is one of the best teams in the country on paper, but they lost 5 of their last 12 including a terrible loss to Millikin which probably pushed them out.

    UW-La Crosse lost eight games including three losses to Carleton (10-16), UW-River Falls (10-16) and UW-Eau Claire (10-16). I don’t see an outrage here that they got left off.

    UW-Oshkosh had a better season than Lacrosse with all six losses coming against quality teams, but they lost three times to La Crosse. I would have a hard time keeping Lacrosse out and putting in a team that lost to them three times.

    I am sure I will get much opposition on this but I just don’t see the outrage keeping these three teams out, they got left out for bad losses. With so many DIII teams trying to get in the tourney, you just can’t suffer bad losses.

    For one of these to get in a team like Guilford would probably be left out. Guilford went 21-4 with two of their losses coming to defending national champion Virginia Wesleyan. In my opinion if they were left out I think it would have been an even bigger disappointment, though I doubt many would have said nearly as much about it.

  3. Like I wrote on the message boards, if Coast Guard wins your conferences Pool A bid you don’t deserve a C bid. When I see a team like Stevens playing a cupcake schedule getting a pool C bid and I see WIAC, CCIW and NJAC teams not make it there is something wrong. Stevens would be a .500 at best team in the NJAC, probably worse in the WIAC or the CCIW but because they beat up on nobodies who beat up on other nobodies it bugs me. And I really don’t think that NJCU deserved to go to the NCAA’s, but I don’t think Stevens and WPI are good enough either.

  4. Knightstalker, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment (and in the interest of full disclosure, i was hired out by the NEWMAC to broadcast their tournament)…In my opinion, WPI absolutely deserved an NCAA bid (i’ve seen them enough to know that)…They dominated their league and had a dominant season overall, then ran into an incredible Cinderella story. The NEWMAC may not be a great power league like the WIAC or CCIW, but people on our poll thought highly enough of them to rank them #13 in the country, which is good enough for me.

    If you want to argue that WIAC or CCIW got jobbed, that’s fair, but I think it’s unfair to rap the NEWMAC

  5. Chris Brooks’ comments are worthwhile. We also tout athletics as a way to learn to “play within the rules” and to respect those rules. This is what has been in place and no one should be blindsided by it. The system will hopefully be better next year with opponent’s opponents winning percentage coming into the mix. Any team that doesn’t make the tournament is disappointed but the numbers are the numbers. Subjectively deciding who is the best is not the solution.

  6. Be that as it may, IMHO the at large teams should be the ‘best’ of the rest – not concocted with some idiotic formula that uses nothing grounded in reality to compare between regions. They should use a national SOS factor to get the “C” teams.

  7. ATNWriter, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the NEWMAC in action, I was basing my statements on past history where the conference does not seem to be that strong. I realize that Coast Guard is a .500 team overall but only 2 conference wins bugs me. I liken them winning their conference to Rutgers Camden winning the NJAC if the NJAC let every team in the conference tournament. You lose to a team that bad it should change the bubble into a black hole. I am probably more bugged about Stevens making it. I know their record is impressive but looks are deceiving. Stevens has gotten much better in the last two or three seasons since they removed the NJAC teams from their schedule. I also question the regional rankings and the criteria used because I definitely feel that Ramapo, NJCU and Rowan are all better teams than Stevens or Mahattanville. This is almost like ranking Hofstra higher than North Carolina because they have a better record.

  8. Good Lord! The CCIW got hosed big time. They have one of the top ranked conferences in the country (the top according to Massey), and their top two teams are top-notch. Then to have Augustana playing such a high seed for the second game! WHAT A JIP!

    Granted, I am biased, I graduated from Augustana College, but it doesn’t take a biased alum to realize these brackets stink. Elmhurst has to be livid!

    I think the selection committee did a terrible job – what a fiasco.

    Congrats to all the teams that made it. I know there will be some great stories to come out of the tournament, and many great memories for the players and coaches as well. It is a source of pride for any school to play in the post season.

  9. Amazing: Lake Erie is unranked by D3 and is 29th in the Massey. Wooster is 3rd in both. Yet Lake Erie gets a bye. Good thing they may be a chance to settle things on the court.

  10. Though I’m VERY disappointed that La Crosse and/or Oshkosh didn’t get in, after some thought, it does make sense. Oshkosh had a better QOWI and in-region record but lost to La Crosse 3 times. It’s a very good argument that you can’t put La Crosse in and leave Oshkosh out and vice versa. The NCAA had two choices, put both in or leave both out, the choose the latter. As for Elmhurst, and I may seem bias since I’m a WIACer, but they can’t complain too much. They try to compare themselves to Oshkosh because they beat them. Look at their QOWI, it’s 20+ spots lower than Oshkosh.

    I’m not saying the system is perfect, but based on the current system, Elmhurst shouldn’t be in.

  11. I’ve just been following D3 basketball for the last few years, but I’ve seen enough to know the annual dance selections leave a lot to be desired. I also realize there is a lot of disagreement between D3.Com and the NCAA selection committee in selections and rankings.

    No matter the formula though, explain this to me. How can 25 teams be in the dance that are not even mentioned in D3.Com’s Top(40)Final rankings when there are only 59 teams in all? How can 10 teams that ARE in D3.com’s Top(40)be left out of the dance completely? There are a bunch of schools with very mediocre records who did NOT necessarily win their conference tournament, acing out very good teams such as Oshkosh, Elmhurst, LaCrosse, Carthage, Wheaton, Puget Sound, North Central. Here are the records of some of the teams who are vying for a national title. 16-11; 18-10; 14-12; 18-10; 14-13; 19-9.

    I would venture to say that the top 2 teams in both the WIAC and CCIW could beat the #1 teams in most conferences year in and year out. (And I don’t even live in Wisconsin or Illinois.) To only have one representative from these two conferences most every year is crazy. They are both tough from top to bottom year in and year out. There is never a game that can be taken for granted. Funny thing is, if the WIAC or CCIW didn’t even have a tournament, they would both have two teams in each, some years maybe three.

    In addition, due to travel concerns, all of the really good ‘midwest-west’ teams get stuck in the same 1st/2nd round bracket eliminating each other before even venturing near Salem.

    Amherst loses 2 games down the stretch, drops from 1st to 6th in D3.com’s poll and still ends up with a first round bye. What’s that all about? No one else to give it to?

    I know it’s not D1, but how about 64 teams first of all. Instead of playing all the games at top seed’s home court, have several nicely spaced mid-sized venues throughout the country making travel more equi-distant (eastern teams may actually have to travel a little distance for a change.) By breaking up the brackets a little bit, a west team could travel to Ohio and play an east or south team, both traveling about the same distance. Fans could still follow them there. West Coast teams have to travel long distances usually anyway, so what’s the difference of flying into Chicago/St. L rather than Cleveland or Cincinnati?

    Seems to me, if you’re going to have a playoff, only the top 59 or 64 should be there. Otherwise, what’s the point?

  12. Maybe automatic bids are what needs to be looked at more closely. Not eliminating them, but crunching their numbers more. It just seems like there is a LOT more disparity in D3 than D1 where the cream almost always rises to the top, but there is still room for a George Mason, Winthrop, or Bradley. Maybe a good way to brainstorm it would be, what would happen if D3 were to go to only 32 teams? Not that it should.

  13. D3 used to only have a 32 team tournament, it was horrible because many more deserving teams got left home.

  14. dnchr, eliminating 27 men’s AQ bids to get to the 32 you desire is eliminating the access to the tourney for more than 250 schools of the 382 eligible. Three hundred forty-four schools comprise the membership of the 37 AQ conferences. The formation of new conferences is being driven by the concept of “access” to the tourney.

    I actually believe that the brainstorming is being done by these conferences to maximize the opportunity for these student-athletes. There is more disparity across the country in D3. Please compare the endowments of the various institutions. A Trinity TX has an endowment of $750M and Fontbonne in St Louis is $11M. But, there is also more diversity. Access thru a strong system of conference governance, the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference for Trinity and the Saint Louis Intercollegiate Atheltic Conference for Fontbonne, is making these institutions stronger.

    I know that discussions at the University Board of Trustees level have used conference peers as a measure of what is making for a quality education, in a process of quality improvement.

    The NCAA is providing so many opportunities for offering the quality “student-athlete” experience. We have 18 men’s teams and 20 women’s teams who were the beneficiaries of “do-over’s”. That is what we are complaining about.

  15. My problem with the tournament is the bye games. If you take them out you are allowing more teams to participate. Teams like Elmhurst and other strong teams whose students have worked really hard would get a chance to compete for a national. To me you will never have a true national leaving some of the top teams out. So why are there bye games?

  16. Ned, I believe that’s what’s called the joy of the “regional rankings” which have had Lake Erie ahead of Wooster for a number of weeks. I do hope they get a chance to settle it on the court, even if that court only holds 750 people (as opposed to the 3400 at Timken).

  17. I was actually thinking about using the RPI formula yesterday as a potential alternative to the current model, and see that the DIII hoops folks are thinking the same way, given today’s front page.

    For what its worth, however, I think that the main problem DIII has in the equity of its rankings (football and basketball) is their regional focus. Geography really has nothing to do with the quality of a team–it’s just where they happen to live and play their games. Having looked at the hypothetical numbers, the regional W-L percentage still allows statistical skewing, since most of the highly regarded teams all play in the same geographic region(s). This unintentionally penalizes teams outside of the northeast/middle atlantic and the midwest.

    Not that I think it’s a great system, but the DI football BCS rankings actually incorporates something I think is good, from a statistical standpoint: it factors losses in at a higher weighted average.

    Using the women’s hypothetical RPI as an example, weighing the losses more heavily would probably remove the six five-plus loss teams from the top 25 because of their on-court performance. It also does not penalize the teams that play what is generally considered to be weaker competition, because they still had to play and still had to win to keep their scheduled games to keep their statistical advantage. The winning percentage of their opponents and their opponents opponents would take care of balancing out the quality of competition.

    Just food for thought–even for all the NCAA apologists out there. 🙂

  18. It’s a bummer that D3hoops.com’s #9,13, and 16 don’t get to dance. Why not just have 64 teams? Why only 59?

    I’m not God, and I’m not the selection committee. I just get to enjoy how it all plays out. Still, why not have 64 teams?

    GO AUGIE!!

  19. I hope the RPI is here to stay and NCAA gets rid of the regional rankings. I think the RPI ranking also allows D3 schools to schedule other programs from D1 & D2 to improve there out of conference schedule which will be taken in account at the end of year if your school is on the bubble. Lake Erie and John Carroll both scheduled both opponents from D2(U of Findlay) & D1 (Cleveland State) this past year. Both schools got a whipping on the court but it allowed teams to toughen the non-conference schedule and still be counted for something if you are sitting on the fence at the end of the year. With nearly 400 D3 schools not everybody can schedule the top tier D3 opponents in there non-conference schedule if they sit in a weaker conference for various reasons. The schools that have guts to schedule higher programs should be awarded a NCAA D3 bid if they are sitting in a Pool B or C.

  20. RPI Question!
    When calculating the RPI next year will the NCAA use opponents overall win percentage or their regional win percentage?

  21. We don’t know that they’ll calculate RPI per se.

    But you can rest assured that anything they do will be primarily in-region.

  22. I will appreciate some real statisticians to post, but I remember a stat about the best baseball Batting Average ever, Rogers Hornsby 1924 .424 or George Brett’s 1980 .390.

    It seems that Brett’s .390 was higher in terms of Standard Deviations above the mean than Hornsby’s.

    Do we have a sufficiently large “n” to determine whether Amherst’s Opponents opponents record is higher above the mean than UW-SP’s or Mississippi College’s or Wooster’s? If we have a regionally based statistic, doesn’t the standard deviations above the mean consider that?

    Thanks.

  23. However, George had qualified for the batting title. The major league season in 1924 was only 154 games. There were 8 teams in 1924; 12 in 1980.

    My question to the statisticians is whether this is a fair way to compare the current QOWI’s and those of recent years.

    The big QOWI for Amherst might not be as dramatic as the slug-it-out QOWI in the CCIW.

  24. Ralph,

    I agree. The QOWI is not accurate on a nationwide scale. It could only be accurate for conference games, and the QOWI could then only be used to measure teams in a particular conference – not compare teams from different conferences.

  25. Sean, did I misinterpret your last post as commenting on the relationship of a standard deviation treatment of the QOWI not being applicable between the various regions of D3?

    That is what I am asking.

    I really believe that any system that doesn’t emphasis the scheduling of D3 opponents as being more detrimental to our division than the current situation. As I saw the sample RPI, I cannot recommend scheduling much more than the minimum ASC games because of the paucity of Opponents Opponents Percentage favorable teams in the Southwest compared to the Northeast Region. That means a bunch of scholarship NAIA’s from a very strong Sooner AC or Red River AC on the schedules.

Leave a Reply

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