.png)
At-Large Mock #2
I spent the morning and most of the afternoon yesterday getting my data together for Selection Eve. The goal is to keep my data current with the matches going on this week. I cannot do that with SOS unfortunately and will be using the SOS from the regional rankings data sheets. I could use Ned’s data but it’s not exact and I feel the data sheets get me closer. At this late date, there will be some movement but hopefully not enough to mess me up.
The hardest part about predicting the at-large bids is knowing who the RACs ranked in the final regional ranking because we don’t see that until after the fact. So, I may be trying to decide between two teams and those teams aren’t even up for nomination because the RACs moved another team past them. To make matters worse, there are a couple of questionable decisions in the last regional rankings so will they stay as is or will they get “corrected”? Regardless, we do our best with these selections and we push forward because this is America!
What we’ll do at the end of this article is another mock selection. The automatic qualifiers will be handed to the #1 seeds in each tournament and we’ll try to figure out the best 20 from the teams that remain. Before we get to that, however, we are going to talk about bad losses.
I define a bad loss as a loss against an opponent that is not regionally ranked. Again, this is slightly unfair to the smaller regions because the margin for error is less. One big question is whether the RACs even concern themselves with bad losses. I think they should because it’s a component of Ranked Results. With Ranked Results, you look at what regionally ranked teams someone beat and lost to but you should also weigh that with who they lost to that wasn’t regionally ranked. I mean, why should losing to Calvin or Smith College matter (both regionally ranked) but losing to Vassar (not regionally ranked) not matter? It makes no sense not to have a complete picture. (My apologies to Vassar. I chose you simply because my daughter almost went there.)
Here are some teams that could be selected with their bad losses:
Wesleyan 1
Amherst 1
Springfield 3
Stevens 1
Haverford 1
Messiah 3
Christopher Newport 1
Birmingham-Southern 4
Randolph-Macon 1
Mary Washington 3
Calvin 1
Ohio Northern 1
Denison 1
UW-Eau Claire 1
Chicago 1
Aurora 1
UW-Oshkosh 5
Colorado College 1
The regionally ranked team with the greatest number of bad losses is Keene St with 7. One team above that is intriguing is Springfield. In most of the scenarios they have a really good chance at selection. Their Ranked Results record as of yesterday was 7-3, which is really good. Their best wins are Babson and Tufts, which are good teams (well, I know Tufts is). When the RAC and the National Selection Committee look at Springfield’s Ranked Results will that be the gist of it? Or will they factor in losses to WPI (17-7), Clark (13-12) and Brandeis (8-17)? If I’m a RAC Chair in another region and I’m doing the job that is required of me then this is certainly something I’m bringing up if I have a team from my region being compared to a team with bad losses.
Continuing on for a moment, I’m not sure the Region VI RAC concerned themselves with bad losses when they dropped UC Santa Cruz from 3rd down to 7th. The teams that passed up UCSC had a combined 9 bad losses and remember that the only reason these teams past UCSC was due to Ranked Results. Oh yeah, UCSC doesn’t have any bad losses on the season. When I did my analysis yesterday, I could see that by looking at the best teams each team has beat that you could make a case to drop UCSC. Without looking at bad losses, however, the Region has moved teams that have shown they can play at a much worse level than UCSC ahead of them. Not saying they are wrong by the letter of the criteria but if the goal is to get your best teams nominated, I’m not sure the RAC did this. I’m also not sure if UC Santa Cruz had been named North Carolina Wesleyan that this move would have happened.
Alright, mock selection time and I setup the criteria in our project tool but I’ll be doing a sanity check this time when it comes to head-to-head and common opponent. Here were the teams eligible from each region based on the regional rankings removing any teams that were the #1 seed for their tournament:
Remember that once we select a team from a region, a replacement team from the same region gets nominated. Here were the picks:
Calvin (Wittenberg is the replacement)
UW-Whitewater (UW-Stevens Point)
Emory (Birmingham-Southern)
Colorado College (Southwestern)
MIT (Springfield)
UW-Stevens Point (Chicago)
Chicago (UW-Oshkosh)
Susquehanna (Haverford)
Wittenberg (Otterbein)
Wesleyan (Tufts)
Tufts (Middlebury)
Middlebury (Amherst)
Stevens (Montclair St.)
Otterbein (Muskingum)
Bethel (St. Olaf)
Southwestern (Pomona-Pitzer)
Muskingum (Carnegie Mellon)
Haverford (Scranton)
Scranton (Stevenson)
Stevenson
(What follows will be pretty much how I am on Selection Eve. You have been warned.)
I let the project tool pick the first 5 selections. I then changed the order of the next three as I didn’t think the tool properly addressed the Ranked Results. I probably should have jumped in on the Susquehanna pick, but didn’t. I think they (currently) get an at-large at some point so why not at #8. I then took over for the tool starting with the 9th pick.
Once I took over, it really becomes a lot about Ranked Results and as I wrote above, I look at the bad losses. I had four teams together including the two I chose in Wittenberg and Wesleyan. I didn’t want to take all four because I thought that was a lot for one time through.
Once Tufts became eligible, they pretty much destroyed the rest. Great record, great SOS with a win over Trinity (TX).
Pick12 – If you are a long-time reader (or even a short-time reader) then you should know I don’t like how the criteria favors the northeast. So, how is that I just selected three New England teams all from the same region? Because the criteria said to do it. Middlebury has an .826 record and a .603 SOS with a win over Babson along with 6 other regionally ranked wins (mostly sad regionally ranked wins). Were those numbers created by playing teams that are inferior to other regions? Yes. Are they the 12th best team for an at-large? No. Are they my 12th selection? Yes.
At Pick 13 there were a number of close calls but I decided to take both Stevens and Otterbein as they were close to each other and slightly better than the rest. You’ll remember that we didn’t take a New York as an at-large in last week’s mock selection. Stevens changes the script here. Haverford is helped here because they had a loss to Stevens.
We have 6 picks left and looking down the list I’m not overly impressed with Amherst, Ithaca and Montclair St. Maybe Amherst could make a case because they have a win over Wesleyan although I’m not high on them. And, yes, I know they were selected, but that’s not me…it’s the criteria. Springfield has 3 bad losses which is messing with my opinion of their Ranked wins. Same goes for Birmingham-Southern and UW-Oshkosh.
With pick 15, it’s all about Muskingum right now. What’s interesting is that the projection tool didn’t have them selected (they would have been 21st). The tool actually wants Haverford right now but Muskingum has a better SOS and much better Ranked Results so I think someone has been paid off. (Or likely I messed up the selection criteria input to the tool.) Another option is Bethel and even Southwestern. I think I like Bethel a hair more than my Pirates (UW-Stevens Point win better than Aurora win). What pulls me off of Muskingum right now are the losses to lower regionally ranked teams. They have two losses that are regionally ranked only because the region is bigger. Going with Bethel here.
St. Olaf comes in and I don’t see them going anywhere. I can see the selection committing going Haverford here but I can’t take them until I take Muskingum. Or maybe even Springfield. Haverford has a loss to Stevenson and a “bad loss” to Marymount (sorry Beth). Southwestern has no bad losses are even a bad regionally ranked loss. I like Southwestern better than Springfield and Muskingum so they are my choice. (Note – The projection tool had them going as the last selection.)
I’m taking Muskingum here. They may not get selected because they have a number of losses but all are to regionally ranked opponents. Two wins over Wittenberg and one over Otterbein who both have already been selected. They also have a win over BSC who is currently nominated against them.
Three picks left. Here are the teams left:
Amherst/Springfield is really tight and could go either way. If I throw Ithaca into that mix then they come out ahead of Amherst but not Springfield. Montclair State isn’t getting in. Haverford has record and SOS over Springfield. I really dislike Haverford’s Ranked Results and I could make an argument that Ithaca beats out Springfield. Will the selection committee take 5 New England teams when almost none of them travelled? BSC is in that mix with Ithaca and Springfield. Ithaca has a regionally ranked record of 5-12 but both Springfield and BSC have a number of bad losses. I can’t penalize Ithaca for losing to better teams. Right, RACs? Carnegie Mellon is like Ithaca but worse, BUT they have two wins over regionally ranked #1 teams! Crazy. NYU and Wesleyan. I never thought I would be looking at CMU but they have the advantage over Springfield; common opponent, SOS and Ranked Results. St Olaf and Pomona-Pitzer just don’t have enough in more than maybe one criterion. The projection tool wants Haverford and I think that region needs another selection so they are my pick here.
Springfield, Ithaca, Scranton (just came in), BSC, Carnegie Mellon and UW-Oshkosh are my focus. More problems because Scranton comes in with a nice record and SOS but their Ranked Results aren’t the best (Stevens is their best win). Ithaca has been under consideration since the beginning, which will happen in real-life, too. Here we go. Springfield over Ithaca. Scranton over Springfield (and Ithaca). Give me Scranton over BSC. And just when you things will go smoothly, it looks like CMU is better than Scranton (common opponent and SOS with Ranked Results really interesting). Scranton takes down UW-Oshkosh so only CMU is in the way. I’m taking Scranton here despite the CMU result because I’ll be surprised if CMU makes it with a 13-12 record.
Stevenson comes in and comes out better in the comparison than Springfield and Ithaca. In a nutshell I like CMU over Stevenson but Oshkosh over CMU and, of course, Stevenson over Oshkosh. This will all come down to how the committee handles Ranked Results and the same can be true for the last 6 or 7 picks. I’m going to go Stevenson here. Sorry Ricky.
When I compare my results with the projection tool, I brought in Muskingum and the tool liked Springfield. I think a 5th New England team is a tough ask but it’s quite possible.
Bubble teams are Southwestern, Muskingum, Haverford, Scranton, Stevenson, Springfield, Ithaca, Birmingham-Southern, Carnegie Mellon and UW-Oshkosh.
Differences from last week were that we dropped UC Santa Cruz and Springfield. I think we added Stevens and Muskingum. Bethel was also new but they took Gustavus Adolphus’ spot as I switched the Pool A winner.
Comments