Strength of Schedule calculations changed

Editors Note: Adjustments made to this blog to account for slight changes in the women’s SOS calculations as well.

2013 NCAA Basketball ChampionshipFor many of our mathematicians and number crunchers on the D3boards have been struggling with one thing since the Regional Rankings came out: they couldn’t get the SOS numbers the NCAA released to jive with their calculations. After all, there isn’t anything overly complicated with the calculations. The basics are this: a team’s Opponent’s Winning Percentage (OWP) x 2/3 + the Opponent’s Opponent’s Winning Percentage (OOWP) x 1/3. Another key is the fact that a multiplier of 1.25 is used for road games, 1.0 for neutral games, and 0.75 for home games in the OWP and OOWP for the men’s side of things.

For the mathematicians and the number crunchers, they break out their Excel sheets, paper, pencil and calculator, or whatever they use and they plug in the results for all Division III games into that and they come out with the overall SOS. However as I mentioned, they couldn’t figure out why their numbers weren’t adding up this past week.

Well, it turns out that is because the NCAA changed one simple thing in how they crunch the numbers and, well, forgot to tell everyone. (When reading through the 2013 Division III men’s pre-championship handbook it appears the change has not been rewritten in this material – but that is for others to figure out.)

The decision was made by the Championships Committee back in September and was apparently made because the original SOS calculations was coming up with some screwy numbers, especially in Division II where some provisional members were not playing a majority of their games in the division and that resulted in smaller win/loss numbers and thus, maybe, some inflated win-loss percentages. The previous means of calculating the SOS was apparently then causing what was perceived as inflated or deflated SOS’s.

To explain the change, let’s start with how they originally did the math for a men’s team. Here is Team A’s schedule over eleven games:

Opponent W L WP Mult. Average
Team B 9 1 .900 1.25 1.125
Team C 9 3 .750 1.25 0.938
Team D 5 2 .714 1.25 0.893
Team E 7 4 .636 1.00 0.636
Team F 6 4 .600 1.25 0.750
Team G 6 4 .600 0.75 0.450
Team H 6 4 .600 1.25 0.750
Team I 4 5 .444 0.75 0.333
Team J 4 6 .400 1.00 0.400
Team K 4 8 .333 1.00 0.333
Team L 1 7 .125 1.25 0.156
        Total: 6.764
        SOS (total/games): .6149

However, here is the change. They are now calculating based on each raw number, not the overall percentage. So here is Team A’s exact same schedule with this raw number calculation instead:

Opponent W L Mult. Raw Ws Raw Ls
Team B 9 1 1.25 11.25 1.25
Team C 9 3 1.25 11.25 3.75
Team D 5 2 1.25 6.25 2.50
Team E 7 4 1.00 7.00 4.00
Team F 6 4 1.25 7.50 5.00
Team G 6 4 0.75 4.50 3.00
Team H 6 4 1.25 7.50 5.00
Team I 4 5 0.75 3.00 3.75
Team J 4 6 1.00 4.00 6.00
Team K 4 8 1.00 4.00 8.00
Team L 1 7 1.25 1.25 8.75
      Total: 67.50 51.00
      SOS (WP): .5696

Certainly the difference between .6149 and .5696 looks large (.05!), but this is just 11 games and obviously by this point in the season we are looking at give or take 20-plus games on a team’s schedule, so the amount of data is greater and the numbers are probably a bit closer. Of course the biggest difference will come for teams that play teams with less regional results than others who maybe play all of their games in region.

Now for the women, they do not use the multiplier the men do, but if we are talking about adding just the numbers and not averaging the averages… there is a slight change. Below is a table for Team A’s opponents:

Opponent W L WP
Team B 9 1 .900
Team C 9 3 .750
Team D 5 2 .714
Team E 7 4 .636
Team F 6 4 .600
Team G 6 4 .600
Team H 6 4 .600
Team I 4 5 .444
Team J 4 6 .400
Team K 4 8 .333
Team L 1 7 .143
 Totals:  61 48
 SOS:  .560 .556

The .560 would be the new SOS… the .556 would have been the old SOS number. Yes, the number is ever so slightly different especially compared to the men, but it is an adjustment.

This doesn’t look initially like it will have a large or dramatic impact on Division III. I am sure our mathematician friends can say more about this, but it appears the NCAA is breaking down the numbers in more detail to get more accurate information than in the old system.

I hope that helps, but I will let our math friends be the ones who can break this down further on the merits of the decision.

Dave’s Top 25 ballot: Week 10

Sorry for the tardiness on this, but celebrating the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl title got me a little out of sync this week and then the computer I have my blog written on decided to quit working when I went to post this on Wednesday morning. Better late than never, I guess.

Once again, I had to do some real analyzing after not only the number one team lost, but when several other teams on my previous ballot took losses. (And as you will notice, I will already be changing my number one team next week.)

The one thing I have noticed and even discussed with other voters, there may be 15 or 20 teams everyone feels comfortable with, but those last five or ten spots are turning into a cluster(fill in the blank). For the most part, it seems like no one wants to step up and grab their position in the polls or in their conferences. As a result, I think voting this season may be getting harder in some ways than usual years when you really have a sense of who the best teams in the country are.

1 – WhitworthUp 1 spot
I really debated about this. The Pirates have certainly been on a tear winning every one of their games except the season opener against St. Thomas, but besides Whitman their conference schedule has been somewhat weak. They already had to use extra time to get past a pretty decent Whitman squad, but they have also been dominating teams for the most part. I am sure I will be changing this pick sooner than I would like (and now after the fact this is indeed true).

2 – St. ThomasUp 1 spot
I seriously considered putting the Tommies back into the number one place after they clearly rebounded from their lone loss pretty well. However, I had decided that St. Thomas’ loss to Concordia-Moorehead was worse than Whitworth’s loss to St. Thomas in game number one, so I didn’t feel comfortable changing that mentality a week later.

3 – WPIUp 1 spot
Being the Engineers are undefeated and had a nice victory of Springfield this past week, I could have easily decided to move WPI all the way to #1. However, I am still considering who they have played… or not played. WPI is clearly having a better season than anyone could have expected, but I may need to see a little more before I think #1 is the right place for WPI.

4 – RochesterDown 3 spots
I expected the Yellowjackets to get through the weekend unscathed, though maybe bruised, as my number one team. Of course if they had lost to Brandeis, I wouldn’t have been shocked. But to lose to an NYU team that I clearly had overrated earlier this year was not what I would have expected. Rochester did rally to get through the weekend 1 and 1, but they lost the wrong game. Considering it was their first loss of the season, on the road, and many teams below also lost, Rochester didn’t fall as much as I thought about moving them.

5 – MiddleburyUp 1 spot

6 – CatholicUp 1 spot

7 – Hampden-SydneyUp 2 spots

8 – Illinois WesleyanUp 6 spots
I was already starting to buy into the Titans, but when you beat Augustana (on the road) and Wheaton (at home) to sweep the season series from those two and remain three games ahead of North Central, I was ready to buy in further. Can the Titans get through the entire CCIW unscathed? Maybe, but the conference is too good in general for that to possibly happen. So I will continue to move IWU up the board, but won’t jump them into my top five until they get through the conference unscathed.

9 – RamapoUp 1 spot

10 – AmherstUp 3 spots
The Lord Jeffs had a very good week beating Rhode Island and two conference opponents, albeit at home. As a result, their win over Williams now becomes a bigger factor, especially since it was a blow out, so I moved them ahead of the Ephs. However, Amherst didn’t have the strongest out-of-conference schedule and lost two games as well, so I think this could be my ceiling unless they beat Williams on the road in the same manner.

11 – WilliamsDown 3 spots
I did move the Ephs down, but it had more to do with teams I moved ahead of them than the week they had. Granted they won two games on the road in the conference, but they were both close games against Bowdoin (12-9) and Colby (6-15). I know it isn’t the easiest thing to travel in the NESCAC especially from northwestern Massachusetts to anywhere in Maine (there is no such thing as a straight drive from Point A to Point B in that scenario), but if the Ephs are that good they should handle that scenario a bit better.

12 – UW-Stevens PointDown 7 spots
It wasn’t like the Pointers had it easy this week: they played on the road against Platteville and La Crosse who are both having solid seasons. What surprised me was the fact the Pointers were held to just 46 points against Platteville and then couldn’t recover a few days later against La Crosse and only scored 62. That is just the kind of week that can derail a team and makes a voter nervous. I am not sold on just how good the WIAC is this season maybe because the top of the conference isn’t as good as usual while the middle of the conference is just as tough as always.

13 – St. Mary’s (Md.)Up 2 spots

14 – CalvinUp 2 spots

15 – North Central (Ill.)Up 2 spots

16 – Christopher NewportDown 5 spots
I was confident the Captains were pretty good this year, but when you lose to a .500 team like Greensboro at home, I take pause. I still think CNU is a solid team, but I may have had them too high in my poll. (And since I voted they lost to Virginia Wesleyan at home and it wasn’t close.)

17 – WoosterDown 5 spots
The win over Denison at home was destruction; the loss on the road against Wabash was… well… embarrassing. I am not sure if the Scots were looking too far ahead to their game against Ohio Wesleyan or not, but this is the time of year where a team needs to put its foot down and not stub its toe.

18 – Rhode Islandunchanged

19 – Wheaton (Ill.)unchanged

20 – Rose-HulmanUp 3 spots
The Engineers put their foot down on the HCAC. With a very important game against underachieving Transylvania who beat them at home earlier in the year… they won on the road. Rose-Hulman now has a two game lead on the conference forcing everyone to go through Terre Haute, Indiana if they want to automatically pack their bags for the NCAA tournament.

21 – Cortland StateUp 3 spots

22 – UW-Whitewaterunranked
As I mentioned earlier, I am not sold on the top of the WIAC. I have also not been sold on the Warhawks a lot this season; they simply lost too much from last year’s national champions. But they keep winning and are now just a game back of UW-Stevens Point and may be finding their stride… for now.

23 – MITunranked
For the engineers, I mean beavers, no I mean Engineers (plenty of them in my Top 25), they still don’t have Jamie Karraker or Noel Hollingsworth back and may never get them back, but they are still winning. There are three seniors in double-figures including Mitchell Kates and Will Tashman who are scoring 15+ points a game and some of the underclassmen are stepping up. Only one of their four losses is a bad one (Salem State) and they have won five straight. Maybe MIT has found a way to win this season despite the challenges they have faced.

24 – WesleyDown 4 spots
I knew that trying to sweep St. Mary’s, especially with the second game being on the road, would be a tall task. So, I really wasn’t going to eliminate them from my ballot and they only moved this far down because I was moving other teams in that I think might still be better despite the fact the Wolverines have still won 12 of the last 13 (as of my voting).

25 – SUNY-Old Westburyunranked
In a constant search for who are the best 25 teams, I am taking another stab at a team that maybe isn’t getting enough attention. I don’t have the space to explain the season the Panthers have had simply from Superstorm Sandy and the aftermath. But consider that Old Westbury played their first 13 games of the season on the road, had to travel by van to every practice for the first several months at a gym off campus, and they didn’t even have their own locker rooms during that time. Still, the Panthers are undefeated in their conference and while games have been close recently it is probably because the Panthers aren’t used to playing in their own gym!

Dropped out this week:

DeSales21st last week
I will be the first to admit, I made a mistake here. Shortly after I placed DeSales in my ballot and stated they were one team flying lowest on the radar, they lost two games in conference including a pivotal game with Delaware Valley before falling asleep against Misericordia.

Transylvania22nd last week
The Pioneers did it to me again. I bought in and put them back in my Top 25 only to see them lose to Rose-Hulman, at home no less. I just can’t figure out the Pioneers who didn’t lose any of their starting offense from last year’s squad, but clearly lost something from the seniors who left even if it wasn’t on the court.

Alvernia25th last week
You can almost copy my comments about DeSales into this section: they lost a pivotal game against conference and Reading, PA rival Albright. They didn’t lose two games, but when you are on the very bottom of the ballot, any slip can cost you.

Hoopsville Rant: 138 points – What was the point?

Forgive me if this seems a bit late in coming, but I wanted to give myself time to think before just putting my thoughts immediately to a keyboard. I was worried that if I wrote immediately afterward, emotions may get the best of me. I also worried that in light of allowing my emotions to carry me, I might actually hold back my thoughts. Now I am here… and ready to rant.

I was not even all that sure that writing about Grinnell’s Jack Taylor’s record 138-point night is a great idea. Why would I want to give even more attention to something I have so many problems with? Why should Grinnell get any more attention than they have by being featured on ESPN, Today Show, Nightly News, and elsewhere? But with those questions in mind, why shouldn’t we in the Division III community take the time to give our two cents? Why should only the major media outlets, which only seem to cover Division III when something like this happens, be the ones that dictate the content? I have already read some very good opinions from many including some in the D3 family like coach Bob Walsh of Rhode Island College, so I am writing about the game … and I hope to keep my emotions in check.

Simply put, the game makes me sick to my stomach. Not because Taylor scored 138 points. I am sick to my stomach because this isn’t how records are made to be broken. This isn’t the way you represent your school. This isn’t the way you garner respect for a school, program or division. And this isn’t the way Division III athletes and programs should be recognized. Not for a gimmick. Not for embarrassing an opponent. Not for something that seems to fly right in the face of the NCAA’s sportsmanship initiative.

You know, something that “demonstrates one or more of the ideals of sportsmanship, including fairness, civility, honesty, unselfishness, respect and responsibility.” We’ll get back to that.

I should say now that I was impressed with Taylor’s effort. He did score 138 points in a 40 minute game, after all. He did shoot the ball 108 times without his arms collapsing at his sides. He did accomplish an incredible feat. However, that is where my congratulations and being impressed stops.

This isn’t Taylor’s fault. This wasn’t necessarily his doing. This was clearly the brain-child of Grinnell head coach David Arseneault and this isn’t the first time we have seen this gimmick from him and his program. Remember, his son “broke” the assist record for a game a few years ago. And remember current senior Griffin Lentsch “broke” the Division III scoring record with 89 points almost exactly a year before Taylor’s 138-point night.

Arseneault runs and touts the infamous “System” which allows teams to score plenty of points in games while playing upwards of 15 players, subbing them in and out of a game every 30 to 90 seconds. Many other schools have implemented the system in the past for all kinds of reasons (Redlands, Muhlenberg, North Central). Some want their players to enjoy the game when they aren’t competitive, some because their coaches believe in the system, and others for other reasons. It has resulted in records for points in a game and it has garnered national attention. That’s fine. It works for the coaches and teams that implement it. I have no problem with it. But those other programs didn’t target games or opponents just to break records.

This wasn’t the prototypical “system.” Grinnell rigged the system, as they have in the past, simply to rig a record. Sure, people will claim that coaches can change their game plans per the game and the opponent. I understand that. But this is specifically changing the game plan not because of the opponent, not because of the game, and not because it might help you win… this is to break a record and in the process embarrass the opponent.

But there are other fish to fry here and questions to be raised like why in the world would an institution like Grinnell keep letting this happen? If you don’t know, Grinnell is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country. U.S. News and World Report’s annual Best Colleges issue has Grinnell ranked 22nd in the list of National Liberal Arts Colleges. The college prides itself on the quality of their academics and their institution. In fact their mission statement reads “to educate its students ‘for the different professions and for the honorable discharge of their duties of life.’” It goes on to state, “the College aims to graduate women and men … who are prepared in life and work to use their knowledge and their abilities to serve the common good.”

So how does telling your team the goal is to take advantage of the fact the coaches scheduled a weak out-of-conference opponent that won’t be able to stop a record-breaking attempt educate students so they can honorably discharge their duties in life or help them serve the common good?

It started out, according to several reports, as emails from the coaching staff the weekend before the game, according to several interviews and reports. Then at Monday’s practice, under the guidance of the coaches who put in a scheme to achieve this goal, the team decided to elect Jack Taylor as the man to set the record. Mind you, they did NOT select last year’s honoree, senior Griffin Lentsch.

Here is some food for thought:
– Jack Taylor has claimed in several interviews that the team and the coaches wanted to get him out of his shooting slump. Going into the game against Faith Baptist he was shooting 11-for-41 from the floor, just under 29 percent, and 6-for-34 from beyond the arc, 17.6 percent. In the record-setting game, he shot over 48-percent from the floor and 38-percent from beyond the arc. Then in the last two games, where he has only scored an average of 19.5 points, he has shot over 36-percent from the floor and over 29-percent from downtown.

Two thoughts here: maybe Taylor needs to figure something out with his shooting overall; or Grinnell should have Taylor shoot 100-plus times a game all the time if they want any hope of him actually shooting well.
– Taylor played 36 minutes in the game; about the same amount his teammate Lentsch did last year when he broke the D3 record. The rest of Taylor’s 19 teammates played no more than 15 minutes each and combined for 28 shots and 41 points. As for Lentsch? He had seven points on three shots.
– Taylor played 36 minutes in a game that ended up being a 75-point blowout. He was still shooting the ball with less than two minutes remaining and the score 169 to 101! He had already shattered the record by 23 points!
– Faith Baptist did indeed have a player score 70 points in the loss, but I could do that in a pick-up game if the defense is going to let me have a layup every time down the court.
– Oh, and by the way, Taylor has only started two of the team’s five games so far this season. Though his best shooting performances have come when he has started. So, maybe just starting Taylor will help with his shooting slump, not having him try and score more than 113 points.

Last January, when Grinnell was having a good season, we had assistant coach and former player David Arseneault Jr. on Hoopsville. Arseneault Jr. was the interim head coach while his dad was on sabbatical working a book about the “system.” But Arseneault Sr. was the head coach during the Lentsch’s record breaking night two months prior. When asked about the game, the younger Arseneault stated that they had no intent to break any record that night against Principia in the season opener. Arseneault Jr. said on the show that they looked at the box score at halftime and saw that Lentsch had 40 points so they decided to go for the record. Of course, Lentsch had played 17 of the 20 minutes so far in the game (no teammate had more than nine minutes) and he had taken 27 shots, 21 of them from beyond the arc.

Sure, there was no intent to break the record at the start of the game? Why would we think that? He had only played nearly the entire half and fired off 23 more shots than any of his teammates!

Let’s also consider the opponents: Principia played just seven guys in that game and finished the season 0-25. Faith Baptist? They played their entire 10-man roster and are currently 0-5.

Combined, Principia and Faith Baptist played 17 men in those two games – Grinnell played 20 just in this year’s game alone. And the two teams have a record of 0-29 against Grinnell – in fact Principia has lost 27 games in a row overall and Faith Baptist has won just one in the last two seasons.

Which gets me back to the NCAA sportsmanship point; do you remember the quote? “Demonstrates one or more of the ideals of sportsmanship, including fairness, civility, honesty, unselfishness, respect and responsibility.”

How does picking Faith Baptist to set a scoring record against demonstrate ANY of those sportsmanship ideals? Furthermore, how does continuing to pour it on when a) you have already broken the record and b) you are leading by 70-plus points demonstrate ANY of those sportsmanship ideals?

You aren’t being fair by picking teams that can’t do anything about it and making a mockery of them and the game. You risk civility if any of the opposing players decide enough is enough (and I wouldn’t blame them!). You are not being honest when you can’t break a record in the spirit or normal flow of a game; you have to rig your own system to get what you want. Unselfishness? Sure, for the other 19 guys who turned down wide-open layups and just kept passing to Taylor for more three-point shots.

This might explain why Grinnell was posting several times over the offseason looking to fill open dates for men’s basketball. Who wants to be a party to this kind of display?

This gets me to the last two ideals of sportsmanship: respect and responsibility. You haven’t earned anyone’s respect for the shenanigans being pulled in any of the record attempts. Many people would argue that the assist “rules” were actually circumvented or stretched just so Arseneault Jr. could break the record. And in the two record scoring games, you didn’t earn anyone’s respect … you in fact may have lost respect.

And responsibility … that lies in the following.

I hear from coaches all the time about “teachable moments” for their athletes. Grinnell is not only a nationally recognized liberal arts college, U.S. News and World Report ranks it as the third best undergraduate teaching college. So, how is rigging a game against an inferior opponent a teachable moment? What in the world do gimmicks like these actually teach the young minds of this team and the rest of the college? If you want to go out there and get national attention by embarrassing your opponent and scoring as many points as you can despite the fact almost every other coach in the country would have called off the dogs in a blowout … you can do it here and this will prepare you for your future in life?

What makes it worse? The college is still touting the achievement on its main website. I’m not talking about the athletic website; I am talking about the college’s main site.

There are plenty of responsibilities for coaches and programs, especially as the competition levels go higher. In Division III, I feel the most responsible thing is to consider that while many schools are putting their best foot forward and bringing in students to help win conference and maybe national championships, it isn’t the only thing that is important to these student-athletes. There are also institutions that may not compete for titles, but feel it is in their best interest for a variety of reasons, including making their students better people, to field teams and teach student-athletes the values of being part of a team and a bigger purpose than individual aspirations.

You don’t see the Amherst’s, Williams’, St. Thomas’, Wash U.’s, Johns Hopkins’, MIT’s, etc. of Division III or any division decide that, against what could be called an inferior opponent, destroying that team and those players just to break a record is acceptable. You also don’t see those teams putting just one player ahead of the entire rest of the team and applauding them for a ridiculous individual achievement in something that is considered a team sport.

So I congratulate Jack Taylor for an impressive 138-point night, but I ask one simple question: What was the point? To quote a very good sports information director at Washington College on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Phil Ticknor, Cory Weissman (whose incredible story from last season is being made into a movie) scored one point in his career. Jack Taylor scored 138 in a game. Weissman’s was more impressive.”

This is Division III. If we get on ESPN or the Today Show or any national media, we should be happy because it was a story like Cory Weissman’s and not Jack Taylor’s. This was clearly a moment that was NOT “why D3.”

NCAA’s 2011 regional rankings, Week 3

The third men’s and women’s regional rankings of the 2010-11 season have been released. For women’s rankings, scroll down.

More about what regional rankings mean
The basics on the NCAA Tournament
Week 1 regional rankings
Week 2 regional rankings

The first record is in-region record, followed by overall record. Through games of Feb. 13.

Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 17-3 18-5
2 Kean 16-5 17-7
3 Mount Saint Mary (N.Y.) 17-5 17-5
4 SUNY-Purchase 19-4 19-4
5 St. Joseph’s (L.I.) 17-3 19-3

East Region
1 Oswego State 19-3 19-3
2 Rochester 17-3 18-4
3 Stevens 17-5 17-5
4 Ithaca 16-5 17-5
5 Hobart 18-4 18-5
6 Medaille 18-4 18-5

Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 18-2 21-2
2 Hope 14-1 18-5
3 Marietta 18-2 21-2
4 Penn State-Behrend 20-2 20-3
5 Wittenberg 14-3 17-5
6 Thiel 14-3 17-6

Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 20-2 21-2
2 Cabrini 19-4 19-4
3 St. Mary’s (Md.) 17-3 19-5
4 Wesley 15-3 16-7
5 DeSales 16-5 18-5
6 Gwynedd-Mercy 17-4 18-5
7 Franklin and Marshall 17-4 19-4
8 Keystone 18-5 18-5
9 Alvernia 14-5 15-5

Midwest Region
1 Augustana 21-1 22-1
2 Concordia (Wis.) 17-2 19-3
3 Hanover 17-5 17-5
4 Edgewood 16-5 16-7
5 Manchester 16-5 17-6
6 Illinois Wesleyan 15-6 16-6
7 Anderson 14-6 16-7
8 Milwaukee Engineering 16-6 17-6

Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 22-1
2 Middlebury 18-1 20-1
3 WPI 20-2 20-3
4 Becker 20-3 20-3
5 Amherst 20-2 21-2
6 Western Connecticut State 18-4 19-4
7 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7
8 Elms 14-6 16-7
9 MIT 16-6 16-7
10 Brandeis 15-7 15-7
11 Eastern Connecticut State 14-6 16-7

South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 17-2 20-2
2 Randolph-Macon 18-4 20-4
3 Ferrum 18-3 21-3
4 Texas-Dallas 16-4 17-5
5 Emory 17-4 18-4
6 Centre 15-4 17-4
7 North Carolina Wesleyan 12-4 17-6
8 Eastern Mennonite 12-4 18-4

West Region
1 Whitworth 23-0 23-0
2 St. Thomas 18-3 19-3
3 UW-Stevens Point 19-3 20-3
4 UW-River Falls 17-3 19-4
5 Chapman 14-1 19-3
6 Carleton 15-5 15-7
7 Whitman 12-4 17-6
8 Lewis and Clark 11-4 17-6
9 St. Olaf 15-6 16-6

Men’s regional score reporting forms:
Atlantic  |  East  |  Great Lakes  |  Middle Atlantic  |  Midwest  |  Northeast  |  South  |  West

Women’s rankings
Women’s rankings have in-region record first, followed by overall record.
Atlantic Region
1. Kean 16-1 20-3
2. Mount Saint Mary 20-2 20-2
3. William Paterson 18-3 19-3
4. Richard Stockton 16-7 17-7
5. Baruch 19-3 20-3
6. Gallaudet 18-1 20-1

Central Region
1. Illinois Wesleyan 15-3 18-4
2. UW-Stevens Point 21-2 21-2
3. UW-Whitewater 15-5 18-5
4. Chicago 19-3 19-3
5. UW-La Crosse 17-5 18-5
6. Wisconsin Lutheran 19-3 20-3

East Region
1. Rochester 15-5 17-5
2. Medaille 20-2 20-2
3. Geneseo State 17-2 19-3
4. Ithaca 16-3 17-5
5. Cortland State 17-4 17-4
6. Oneonta State 16-5 17-6

Great Lakes Region
1. Thomas More 22-0 23-0
2. Hope 19-1 22-1
3. Calvin 15-1 19-4
4. Denison 21-0 23-0
5. Hanover 20-1 21-1
6. DePauw 17-2 20-3

Mid-Atlantic Region
1. Lebanon Valley 21-2 21-2
2. Juniata 17-3 17-6
3. Johns Hopkins 19-4 19-4
4. Gettysburg 17-5 18-5
5. Messiah 14-5 14-6
6. Muhlenberg 17-5 17-5

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 23-1 23-1
2. Bowdoin 20-3 20-4
3. Colby 18-4 20-4
4. Williams 18-4 20-4
5. Babson 21-0 23-0
6. Western Connecticut State 17-2 19-3
7. Bates 15-6 17-7
8. Tufts 16-5 17-5
9. Southern Maine 15-6 15-8
10. Eastern Connecticut State 17-4 17-6

South Region
1. Greensboro 22-0 23-0
2. Louisiana College 19-1 21-1
3. Christopher Newport 18-3 20-3
4. Bridgewater (Va.) 17-3 19-3
5. Randolph-Macon 17-4 17-6
6. Maryville (Tenn.) 20-2 20-4

West Region
1. Coe 19-3 20-3
2. Chapman 14-3 20-4
3. Lewis and Clark 14-3 18-5
4. Simpson 16-4 18-5
5. Wartburg 19-3 20-3
6. George Fox 13-3 18-5

NCAA’s 2011 regional rankings, Week 2

The second men’s and women’s regional rankings of the 2010-11 season have been released. For women’s rankings, scroll down.

More about what regional rankings mean
The basics on the NCAA Tournament
Week 1 regional rankings

The first record is overall record, followed by in-region record. Through games of Feb. 6.

Men’s rankings
Atlantic Region

1 Ramapo 17-4 16-2
2 Kean 15-7 14-5
3 Mount Saint Mary 15-5 15-5
4 SUNY-Purchase 16-4 16-4
5 Montclair State 17-5 11-5
East
1 Oswego State 16-3 16-3
2 Rochester 16-4 15-3
3 Hobart 16-4 16-3
4 Stevens 15-5 15-5
5 Ithaca 15-5 14-5
6 Plattsburgh State 14-6 13-4
Great Lakes
1 Wooster 20-1 17-1
2 Hope 16-5 12-1
3 Wabash 17-4 16-4
4 Marietta 19-2 16-2
5 Penn State-Behrend 18-2 18-1
6 Thiel 15-6 12-3
Middle Atlantic
1 La Roche 19-2 18-2
2 Wesley 15-6 14-2
3 St. Mary’s (Md.) 18-4 15-2
4 Elizabethtown 16-4 15-4
5 Cabrini 16-4 16-4
6 Keystone 16-4 16-4
7 DeSales 16-5 14-5
8 Gwynedd-Mercy 16-4 15-3
9 Franklin and Marshall 17-4 15-4
Midwest
1 Augustana (Ill.) 20-1 19-1
2 Concordia (Wis.) 17-3 15-2
3 Hanover 15-5 15-5
4 Illinois Wesleyan 15-5 14-5
5 Edgewood 14-7 14-5
6 Manchester 15-6 14-5
7 Milwaukee School of Engineering 15-5 14-5
8 St. Norbert 16-4 16-4
Northeast
1 Williams 21-1 19-1
2 Middlebury 18-1 16-1
3 Amherst 20-0 19-0
4 Western Connecticut State 19-2 18-2
5 WPI 18-3 18-2
6 Becker 17-3 17-3
7 Elms 15-6 13-5
8 Rhode Island College 13-7 13-7
9 Brandeis 13-6 13-6
10 Bowdoin 13-7 13-7
11 MIT 15-6 15-5
South
1 Virginia Wesleyan 19-1 16-1
2 Randolph-Macon 19-3 17-3
3 Ferrum 19-2 16-2
4 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-4 17-4
5 Texas-Dallas 16-5 15-4
6 Emory 16-4 15-4
7 Centre 15-4 13-4
8 North Carolina Wesleyan 15-6 10-4
West
1 Whitworth 21-0 21-0
2 St. Thomas 18-2 17-2
3 UW-River Falls 19-3 17-2
4 UW-Stevens Point 18-3 17-3
5 Chapman 18-3 14-1
6 Carleton 13-7 13-5
7 Whitman 15-6 10-4
8 Lewis and Clark 15-6 9-4
9 St. Olaf 15-6 14-6

Women’s rankings
Women’s rankings have in-region record first, followed by overall record.

Atlantic
1. Kean 16-1 19-3
2. Mount Saint Mary (New York) 18-2 18-2
3. William Paterson 17-3 18-3
4. Gallaudet 17-0 19-0
5. Richard Stockton 14-6 15-7
6. Baruch 16-3 17-3

Central
1. Illinois Wesleyan 13-3 16-4
2. UW-Stevens Point 19-2 19-2
3. UW-La Crosse 16-5 17-5
4. UW-Whitewater 13-5 16-5
5. Chicago 17-3 17-3
6. Washington U. 14-2 17-3

East
1. Medaille 19-2 19-2
2. Rochester 14-4 16-4
3. Geneseo State 16-1 18-2
4. Cortland State 14-4 14-4
5. Ithaca 14-3 15-5
6. Oneonta State 15-4 16-5

Great Lakes
1. Thomas More 20-0 21-0
2. Hope 17-1 20-1
3. Calvin 14-1 18-4
4. Denison 19-0 21-0
5. Hanover 18-1 19-1
6. DePauw 14-1 18-3

Mid-Atlantic
1. Lebanon Valley 19-1 20-1
2. Juniata 16-3 16-6
3. Johns Hopkins 17-4 17-4
4. Gettysburg 15-5 16-5
5. Messiah 12-4 13-6
6. Widener 14-5 15-6

Northeast
1. Amherst 21-1 21-1
2. Bowdoin 18-3 18-4
3. Babson 19-0 21-0
4. Colby 15-4 17-4
5. Williams 17-3 19-3
6. Western Connecticut 15-2 17-3
7. Bates 15-5 17-6
8. Southern Maine 14-5 14-7
9. Eastern Connecticut 15-4 15-6
10. Tufts 14-5 15-5

South
1. Greensboro 20-0 21-0
2. Christopher Newport 17-2 19-2
3. Louisiana College 16-1 18-1
4. Randolph-Macon 17-2 17-4
5. Bridgewater (Va.) 15-3 17-3
6. Texas-Dallas 16-4 17-4

West
1. Coe 18-2 19-2
2. Chapman 12-3 18-4
3. Simpson 15-3 17-4
4. Lewis and Clark 12-3 16-5
5. Wartburg 18-3 19-3
6. Puget Sound 14-3 17-4