3/2 Regional Rankings

[NUProf]

Re: 3/2 Regional Rankings

It will all even out for strength of schedule purposes, but it does allow a lot of teams in the nescac to pile up theier win % based on the ecac-e going under .500 in league. Add in some both the ecac-e and nescac fluffing up their overall win % by beating some not-so-good mascac or ecac-ne teams, and you end up with owp and oop records that at worst hover around .500 and at best get bumped well above. All while maintaining a decent win %.

All it takes is basically going .500 in conference games and 4-0 against the ecac-ne and you will be a ranked team. That isn't exactly the definition I'd pick for 'ranking' a team. Personally I've felt that the top 10 eastern and top 6 western teams would make for more deserving rankings.

All you realistically need for rankings are however many autobids are in your region + however many at large bids there are. Granted that could leave some tough competition out of consideration for being ranked, but ranking 22 overall teams is a bit much, in my opinion.

end of rambling rant.

NCAA guidlines say that approximately 1/3 of the teams in each region will be ranked. Again, that's one of those "one size fits all sports" rules that the NCAA is so good at creating.

 

[Dyce]

Re: 3/2 Regional Rankings

NCAA guidlines say that approximately 1/3 of the teams in each region will be ranked. Again, that's one of those "one size fits all sports" rules that the NCAA is so good at creating.

I'm guessing part of it has to do with creating large enough sample sizes for the "record vs. ranked teams" criterion to be anything resembling meaningful. The NCAA knows full-well that the bottom of the list is irrelevant for Pool C purposes, but they want to provide some sort of clear index of "good" teams they can use for the sake of comparison.

 

[NUProf]

Re: 3/2 Regional Rankings

I'm guessing part of it has to do with creating large enough sample sizes for the "record vs. ranked teams" criterion to be anything resembling meaningful. The NCAA knows full-well that the bottom of the list is irrelevant for Pool C purposes, but they want to provide some sort of clear index of "good" teams they can use for the sake of comparison.

That would be the reason. Perhaps for a more stable system, they could go to 1/4 of the teams, but then use what they did in the past which is use the once ranked, always ranked process that they used in the past. The current system changes a team's profile when a team that was formerly ranked becomes unranked - and they didn't do a darn thing. If they beat that team they are hurt, if they lost to them they are helped. Once ranked always ranked made more sense from a statistical point of view.