NCAA D3 Rankings

[Matt Rennell]

Re: NCAA D3 Rankings

I don't think its that farfetched either and they probably should be. I just don't see why River Falls would be ranked ahead one week and then not lose and fall behind.

And such is the world we live in with the NCAA. A contributing factor that you wouldn't see just looking at wins and losses is how their non common opponents fared that week. It would impact their SOS by winning or losing.

Unfortunately, because the NCAA does not release how they weigh the criteria, how quickly they jump to secondary criteria, whether they weigh criteria differently depending on the specific teams involved, etc... we will never know.

 

[nbound]

Re: NCAA D3 Rankings

PairWiseSM Comparisons (PWC)
Teams sorted by winning percentage; teams at or above .500 shown

Opponents Opp. Opp. vs. Ranked Teams
Rk Team GP W- L- T Win% Rk Win % Rk Win % Rk W- L- T Win% Rk
1 Plattsburgh* 24 21- 1- 2 0.9167 1 | 0.5636 4 | 0.5204 4 | 8- 1- 1 0.8500 1
2 Lake Forest* 20 15- 1- 4 0.8500 2 | 0.4564 38 | 0.5299 1 | 2- 1- 3 0.5833 4
3 Amherst* 24 18- 2- 4 0.8333 3 | 0.5840 1 | 0.5194 6 | 6- 1- 3 0.7500 2
4 Trinity* 24 19- 3- 2 0.8333 3 | 0.4860 31 | 0.5088 21 | 2- 2- 1 0.5000 7
5 Elmira* 25 20- 4- 1 0.8200 5 | 0.5723 3 | 0.5200 5 | 5- 4- 1 0.5500 6
6 Gustavus Adolphus* 25 19- 4- 2 0.8000 6 | 0.5153 20 | 0.4934 31 | 3- 2- 1 0.5833 4
7 St. Catherine* 23 17- 4- 2 0.7826 7 | 0.4262 43 | 0.4949 27 | 1- 2- 0 0.3333 13
8 RIT* 24 17- 4- 3 0.7708 8 | 0.5241 14 | 0.5180 7 | 0- 4- 2 0.1667 24
9 Wis.-River Falls* 25 16- 3- 6 0.7600 9 | 0.5554 6 | 0.5127 15 | 3- 3- 3 0.5000 7
10 Manhattanville* 21 15- 5- 1 0.7381 10 | 0.5354 7 | 0.4836 37 | 4- 5- 0 0.4444 9
11 Adrian* 16 11- 4- 1 0.7188 11 | 0.5143 21 | 0.5294 2 | 4- 2- 0 0.6667 3
12 Norwich* 21 13- 5- 3 0.6905 12 | 0.5194 17 | 0.4755 39 | 2- 5- 1 0.3125 14
13 Middlebury* 24 15- 6- 3 0.6875 13 | 0.5755 2 | 0.5162 10 | 2- 4- 3 0.3889 11
14 Mass.-Boston* 20 13- 7- 0 0.6500 14 | 0.4386 40 | 0.4696 41 | 1- 4- 0 0.2000 21
15 Wis.-Superior* 25 15- 8- 2 0.6400 15 | 0.5345 8 | 0.5165 9 | 2- 5- 1 0.3125 14
16 St. Thomas 25 14- 8- 3 0.6200 16 | 0.5109 22 | 0.4942 30 | 2- 4- 2 0.3750 12
17 Salve Regina 20 11- 7- 2 0.6000 17 | 0.4207 44 | 0.4654 44 | 1- 4- 1 0.2500 16
18 Bowdoin 21 11- 8- 2 0.5714 18 | 0.5049 24 | 0.5101 19 | 1- 6- 0 0.1429 25
19 St. Olaf 25 13-10- 2 0.5600 19 | 0.4600 36 | 0.4944 29 | 2- 3- 0 0.4000 10
20 Hamilton 25 11-11- 3 0.5000 20 | 0.5016 26 | 0.5207 3 | 1- 6- 2 0.2222 20
21 Utica 24 11-11- 2 0.5000 20 | 0.5055 23 | 0.5144 13 | 0- 6- 1 0.0714 29
22 New England College 21 9- 9- 3 0.5000 20 | 0.4683 33 | 0.4701 40 | 0- 6- 1 0.0714 29
23 Wis.-Stevens Point 25 11-11- 3 0.5000 20 | 0.5607 5 | 0.5126 16 | 2- 8- 2 0.2500 16

*NCAA Ranked Team
The National PairWiseSM Comparisons provide for our readers the raw data that the NCAA Division III Selection Committee uses to determine participants for the women's hockey tournament. A team is only compared against Division III teams within that team's region. Games against non-D-III opponents are excluded.

The PWC compares only those teams at or above .500.

You can see the complete list of all the individual comparisons.

The PWC can be reformatted and redistributed by any media outlet or person, provided USCHO's URL (http://www.uscho.com/) accompanies the results.



Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w#ixzz0h4gsOJoX

 

[Say What?]

Re: NCAA D3 Rankings

It's not really that far fetched, in fact with the current numbers I agree with the NCAA. FWIW I also had GAC ahead of UWRF in my ballot this week.

    Gustavus Adolphus vs Wis.-River Falls
WIN      0.8000  1           0.7778  0
OWP      0.5309  0           0.5447  1
OOP      0.4950  0           0.5118  1
H2H     1- 0- 1  1          0- 1- 1  0
COP     9- 4- 1  0          9- 1- 1  1
RNK     3- 2- 1  1          3- 3- 3  0
============================================
PTS              3                   3

GAC with a slim lead in Win%, and UWRF with a slim advantage in SOS.

GAC takes the H2H.

The Common Ops goes to UWRF and the RNK goes to GAC.

In this case it is likely the H2H was swung the comparison in GAC's favor, given that everything else was essentially a wash.

Say What???? I have asked this question twice and you have ignored it twice, so let's try again. I shall put it in a slightly different mode. While I may agree with most of your analysis and possibly with your conclusion, why do you (by extension through the USCHO as they are the ones compiling the numbers and quite accurately I must say) continue to go by antiquated NC$$ criteria. As has been pointed out in several posts and even agreed to by the likes of GoJ , the criteria has changed. It may not have changed the outcome of the above comparison but without a doubt will come into play on the eastern side of the board. Granted the criteria are just a starting point as the NC$$ will do as they please in the end, but at least get started utilizing the current rules. Or when you do your analysis put a disclaimer in there that you are using '08-'09 and prior criteria.

The actual comparison would have an SOS comparison of Gustavus - .5181 compared to River Falls of .5375. End of story as OWP and OOP are combined. Therefore Gustavus would win the comparison over River Falls 3-2. Strictly by the numbers Gustavus advances here. But I agree the H2H has to be key. Although Winning % is a close second if the NC$$ utilizes a consistent weighting methodology. Take for instance:

        Lake Forest vs  Gustavus
WIN      0.8636  1      0.8000  0
SOS      0.4764  0      0.5181  1
H2H      0.0000  0      0.0000  0
COP      0.8000  0      0.8636  1
RNK      0.5833  0      0.5833  0
----------------------------------
PTS              1              2
==================================

Gustavus wins the comparison 2-1 over Lake Forest by the numbers. So how does the NC$$ rank Lake Forest over Gustavus in the western rankings. To start with H2H is out and Winning % against ranked opponents is the same. Gustavus wins SOS and Winning % against common opponents by significant margins. Which leaves us with western region Winning % which Lake Forrest wins. Therefore one has to assume that criteria weighting in the NC$$'s eyes has to be heavily tilted towards Winning % first and foremost. (I can see '10-'11 schedules being adjusted as we muse!!)

 

[Say What?]

Re: NCAA D3 Rankings

PairWiseSM Comparisons (PWC)
Teams sorted by winning percentage; teams at or above .500 shown

                                                   Opponents     Opp. Opp.    vs. Ranked Teams
Rk Team                  GP  W- L- T  Win%  Rk     Win %  Rk     Win %  Rk    W- L- T  Win%  Rk
 1 Plattsburgh*          24 21- 1- 2 0.9167  1 |   0.5636  4 |   0.5204  4 |  8- 1- 1 0.8500  1
 2 Lake Forest*          20 15- 1- 4 0.8500  2 |   0.4564 38 |   0.5299  1 |  2- 1- 3 0.5833  4
 3 Amherst*              24 18- 2- 4 0.8333  3 |   0.5840  1 |   0.5194  6 |  6- 1- 3 0.7500  2
 4 Trinity*              24 19- 3- 2 0.8333  3 |   0.4860 31 |   0.5088 21 |  2- 2- 1 0.5000  7
 5 Elmira*               25 20- 4- 1 0.8200  5 |   0.5723  3 |   0.5200  5 |  5- 4- 1 0.5500  6
 6 Gustavus Adolphus*    25 19- 4- 2 0.8000  6 |   0.5153 20 |   0.4934 31 |  3- 2- 1 0.5833  4
 7 St. Catherine*        23 17- 4- 2 0.7826  7 |   0.4262 43 |   0.4949 27 |  1- 2- 0 0.3333 13
 8 RIT*                  24 17- 4- 3 0.7708  8 |   0.5241 14 |   0.5180  7 |  0- 4- 2 0.1667 24
 9 Wis.-River Falls*     25 16- 3- 6 0.7600  9 |   0.5554  6 |   0.5127 15 |  3- 3- 3 0.5000  7
10 Manhattanville*       21 15- 5- 1 0.7381 10 |   0.5354  7 |   0.4836 37 |  4- 5- 0 0.4444  9
11 Adrian*               16 11- 4- 1 0.7188 11 |   0.5143 21 |   0.5294  2 |  4- 2- 0 0.6667  3
12 Norwich*              21 13- 5- 3 0.6905 12 |   0.5194 17 |   0.4755 39 |  2- 5- 1 0.3125 14
13 Middlebury*           24 15- 6- 3 0.6875 13 |   0.5755  2 |   0.5162 10 |  2- 4- 3 0.3889 11
14 Mass.-Boston*         20 13- 7- 0 0.6500 14 |   0.4386 40 |   0.4696 41 |  1- 4- 0 0.2000 21
15 Wis.-Superior*        25 15- 8- 2 0.6400 15 |   0.5345  8 |   0.5165  9 |  2- 5- 1 0.3125 14
16 St. Thomas            25 14- 8- 3 0.6200 16 |   0.5109 22 |   0.4942 30 |  2- 4- 2 0.3750 12
17 Salve Regina          20 11- 7- 2 0.6000 17 |   0.4207 44 |   0.4654 44 |  1- 4- 1 0.2500 16
18 Bowdoin               21 11- 8- 2 0.5714 18 |   0.5049 24 |   0.5101 19 |  1- 6- 0 0.1429 25
19 St. Olaf              25 13-10- 2 0.5600 19 |   0.4600 36 |   0.4944 29 |  2- 3- 0 0.4000 10
20 Hamilton              25 11-11- 3 0.5000 20 |   0.5016 26 |   0.5207  3 |  1- 6- 2 0.2222 20
21 Utica                 24 11-11- 2 0.5000 20 |   0.5055 23 |   0.5144 13 |  0- 6- 1 0.0714 29
22 New England College   21  9- 9- 3 0.5000 20 |   0.4683 33 |   0.4701 40 |  0- 6- 1 0.0714 29
23 Wis.-Stevens Point    25 11-11- 3 0.5000 20 |   0.5607  5 |   0.5126 16 |  2- 8- 2 0.2500 16

*NCAA Ranked Team
The National PairWiseSM Comparisons provide for our readers the raw data that the NCAA Division III Selection Committee uses to determine participants for the women's hockey tournament. A team is only compared against Division III teams within that team's region. Games against non-D-III opponents are excluded.

The PWC compares only those teams at or above .500.

You can see the complete list of all the individual comparisons.

The PWC can be reformatted and redistributed by any media outlet or person, provided USCHO's URL (http://www.uscho.com/) accompanies the results.



Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w#ixzz0h4gsOJoX

Say What??? Not to be a party poop or anything, but the above numbers, and by extension any national comparisons of teams based on these numbers, are meaningless based on the current NC$$ criteria. Any attempt to use them in determining at-large bids is of course also meaningless. But then again, any attempt to figure out how the NC$$ makes it's at-large selections is totally fruitless.