2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

[Ronnieb]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Ummm....you need to go to ncaa.com and study the metrics used. I actually supplied the links earlier.

Oh, I forgot we live in an era where everyone gets a trophy. If you play a garbage schedule or a lousy league, you should not be in the conversation.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Oh, I forgot we live in an era where everyone gets a trophy. If you play a garbage schedule or a lousy league, you should not be in the conversation.

Sorry, that is the way it is in every NCAA sport....There is an AQ from every conference that has the correct number of qualifying teams. Look at D1 hoops...a few years back UVM beat Syracuse in the first round of the Tourney...so yes every athlete deserves to gets a chance...but they still need to win the big one to earn the trophy. And yes most times better teams stay home because of the AQ.

 

[Ozz]

Oh, I forgot we live in an era where everyone gets a trophy. If you play a garbage schedule or a lousy league, you should not be in the conversation.

You're right, Norwich and St. Norbert definitely shouldn't be ranked.

 

[802Hockey]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Oh, I forgot we live in an era where everyone gets a trophy. If you play a garbage schedule or a lousy league, you should not be in the conversation.

hahahahahahahaha, thanks for the comical relief this morning bub. Curious if you've seen Norwich play since you are slandering them a ton on this board. Thank the Lord Almighty you have zero say in rankings or all our heads would be whirling this morning.

 

[BetterInLakePlacid]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

FWIW

Hobart
Adrian
Williams
Babson
Plattsburg
Trinity
Colby
Amherst
Hamilton
Oswego
Stevens Point
Utica

Little early in the day to be drinking, no?

 

[sticksnstones]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

FWIW

Hobart
Adrian
Williams
Babson
Plattsburg
Trinity
Colby
Amherst
Hamilton
Oswego
Stevens Point
Utica

Even if they spelled PlattsburgH right, still no credibility with that list. So Norwich and St. Norbert don't belong in the top 12. Neither does Geneseo. Williams 3rd, Babson 4th. LOL. Did you just take your favorite programs and throw darts at a board?

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Here is a table for NCAA East Ranking vs KRACH East Ranking.....

<TABLE> <tr><td> # </TD><TD> TEAM </TD><TD> EAST KRACH # </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 1 </TD><TD> NORWICH </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 2 </TD><TD> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 4 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 3 </TD><TD> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 4 </TD><TD> HOBART </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 5 </TD><TD> BABSON </TD><TD> 11 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 6 </TD><TD> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 7 </TD><TD> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 3 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 8 </TD><TD> UTICA </TD><TD> 8 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 9 </TD><TD> GENESEO </TD><TD> 6 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 10 </TD><TD> AMHERST </TD><TD> 12 </TD></TR> </TABLE>

Appreciate your work.

Three of the 1st-round byes in both metrics are identical -and a bye is a big deal- and both agree on 6 of the top 8 teams.

The NCAA's ranking is fairly reasonable, IMO, but I think that Hamilton ought to be higher and that Babson shouldn't be in the top 8.

Next couple of weeks should be fun.

 

[Ronnieb]

Even if they spelled PlattsburgH right, still no credibility with that list. So Norwich and St. Norbert don't belong in the top 12. Neither does Geneseo. Williams 3rd, Babson 4th. LOL. Did you just take your favorite programs and throw darts at a board?

It's all good. Need cupcakes in the NCAA tourney as well.
BTW, love the spell checkers. Beauties

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

One thing I find encouraging this year is that - barring upset AQ's- we have a shot to get the 8 statistically-best Eastern teams in. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

 

[vcxc3200]

Leave it to the NCAA to concoct garbage, not even close to sensible

By "Not even close to sensible", do you mean "It doesn't help my team so I think it's wrong?"

Looks like it to me. Translation is a handy, handy tool. Also in your rankings the team at the bottom has beaten the team at the top twice....

Anyway, regarding the actual rankings, the application of the stated process has been so much better these past few years. Committees have gotten it as right as they're going to get it within the framework they are expected to function in. A few things surprised me a bit on first ranking release, but it is those standout items that teach you even more about the process and how it works. The value the committees are placing on SOS here is pretty well documented when you look at the data for Endicott and Babson, and Middlebury on the Women's side.

 

[peddler]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

One thing I find encouraging this year is that - barring upset AQ's- we have a shot to get the 8 statistically-best Eastern teams in. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

The extra 12th spot doesn't hurt.

 

[peddler]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

That's the bizarre part of the RNK metric. It applies to the current rankings.

Prof, I think you are splitting verbal hairs here. XYZ is correct, it is not being applied yet.

While the manual says "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included;" That applies to the "Primary Selection Criteria".

Perhaps it should read "as established by prior rankings, when addressing all rankings before actual selection". OR SOMETHING

Otherwise the equation to determine the first set of rankings actually IS circular.

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Prof, I think you are splitting verbal hairs here. XYZ is correct, it is not being applied yet.

While the manual says "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included;" That applies to the "Primary Selection Criteria".

Perhaps it should read "as established by prior rankings, when addressing all rankings before actual selection". OR SOMETHING

Otherwise the equation to determine the first set of rankings actually IS circular.

Why avoid making it circular now, when you're going to make it circular in the end? This just means that the pre-selection rankings are not as accurate a depiction of the process as they're meant to be...

 

[NUProf]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Why avoid making it circular now, when you're going to make it circular in the end? This just means that the pre-selection rankings are not as accurate a depiction of the process as they're meant to be...

That is the part that struck me as odd. I had assumed (I know, bad idea, because of what is make U and ME), that the same criteria would be used to generate the preliminary rankings as would be used for determining the final rankings. If they go back to prior rankings, wouldn't they then use the super-secret first (or are they the zeroth) rankings from last week.

 

[peddler]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Why avoid making it circular now, when you're going to make it circular in the end? This just means that the pre-selection rankings are not as accurate a depiction of the process as they're meant to be...

That, for this first (public) round of rankings would be correct. These rankings (assuming I understand the process) WILL be used to create RNK for next Tuesday's 2/14 round, etc, until the final "selection".

In XYZ's Feb 14 "opus" on another website he describes this initial process by saying "Strength-of-schedule (SOS) appears to be pulling some significant weight in the East rankings, at least in some instances. As RNK was not considered by the committees in the generation of this set of rankings".

As Prof points out, why not use the (non-publicized) rankings from Feb. 7th? I have no idea since the manual does not explain further. I welcome anyone who might shed some light on the issue.

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

That, for this first (public) round of rankings would be correct. These rankings (assuming I understand the process) WILL be used to create RNK for next Tuesday's 2/14 round, etc, until the final "selection".

In XYZ's Feb 14 "opus" on another website he describes this initial process by saying "Strength-of-schedule (SOS) appears to be pulling some significant weight in the East rankings, at least in some instances. As RNK was not considered by the committees in the generation of this set of rankings".

As Prof points out, why not use the (non-publicized) rankings from Feb. 7th? I have no idea since the manual does not explain further. I welcome anyone who might shed some light on the issue.

The issue is that if you use this week's rankings to determine RNK for next week's rankings, and so on, that's all fine and dandy... until you get to the final rankings used in the selection and it's done differently. The RNK used to determine the final rankings is based on those final rankings themselves. That's a problematic process in itself (and has been for some time), but to now do it differently with each of the prior rankings makes no sense.

This week's ranking, and next week's, and every ranking befor selection Sunday will have absolutely 0 affect on the final selection. "Once ranked, always ranked" was eliminated a while ago.

 

[NUProf]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

"Once ranked, always ranked" was eliminated a while ago.

Unfortunately that concept was the one that actually was viable. The biggest issue with all of this is the fact that you can hurt your own profile by winning a game. If you are playing a team near the bottom of the rankings (such as 9 or 10 E) and you win, with your win causing them to fall out of the rankings, you hurt your own case and just as perversely if you had lost to one of those teams, somebody else beating them and knocking them out of the ratings will help you - because your RNK percentage will go up. If the team stayed ranked, their effect on your profile remains. It's a crazy system.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

The issue is that if you use this week's rankings to determine RNK for next week's rankings, and so on, that's all fine and dandy... until you get to the final rankings used in the selection and it's done differently. The RNK used to determine the final rankings is based on those final rankings themselves. That's a problematic process in itself (and has been for some time), but to now do it differently with each of the prior rankings makes no sense.

This week's ranking, and next week's, and every ranking befor selection Sunday will have absolutely 0 affect on the final selection. "Once ranked, always ranked" was eliminated a while ago.

My name is Garrett Rank, and I approve this post!
<img src="http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/referee-garrett-rank-working-his-first-nhl-game-signals-to-the-prior-picture-id461590514?s=594x594"></img>

 

[spwood]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Is Endicott eligible for their conference tourney? (Silly question probably, but I'm curious). By their inclusion in the rankings I assume they are NCAA eligible.

 

[joecct]

Is Endicott eligible for their conference tourney? (Silly question probably, but I'm curious). By their inclusion in the rankings I assume they are NCAA eligible.

They are a full member of the CCC - a recognized NCAA D-III multisport conference. Why shouldn't they be?

And they played for the ECAC-NE title last season.