Tag Archives: rankings

NCAA’s 2011 regional rankings, Week 2

Posted on by

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

Fact-check the NCAA

Posted on by

A little over a year ago at the NCAA convention, a proposal to make all of the NCAA’s data public was defeated. Enough peer pressure was put on and, in our opinion, misinformation spread, that the proposal was eventually withdrawn.

A compromise, it was said, would be to make public the data in a handful of sports, through posting PDF files, rather than issuing each school a login to a system that already exists for members of regional ranking committees to use.

We know full well the embarrassment of incorrect data and how D3sports.com people must now check every sport’s championship handbook on its release to make sure that the right number of Pool B and Pool C teams are being awarded. This year, in fact, the women’s basketball committee again had to revise their handbook, having promised twice as many Pool B bids as the numbers actually provided for.

So while they won’t open all of their data, they have opened women’s basketball up for us to look at. We always figure the more eyes on data, the better. That’s why our data has always been open and public, and corrections come in throughout the season. That’s because our system, like the NCAA’s, is reliant on schools entering schedules and results, and sometimes typos occur, or sometimes schools just don’t understand what defines a regional game.

At the bottom of this week’s women’s basketball release on the NCAA Web site there are links to PDF files for each of the eight regions which contain the numbers for each team. What we’re concerned with is the first number: the regional win-loss record. That’s the basis for every other number when calculating strength of schedule.

Compare those numbers to the regional record listed with our strength of schedule numbers. This file is currently through the same day, Sunday, Feb. 7. While we continually audit our own database to make sure no errors occur, we have not been able to audit theirs until now.