Chapman/UMHB Comparison

It’s the time of the year that I like to review some of the decisions made by the Regional Advisory Committees (RAC) and the selection committee to see if questionable moves were made. Every year, until now, there were a slew of questionable moves made by these committees but this year is different (at least until we got to host sites and Elite 8 re-seeding). It’s a struggle to even identify one mistake in the regional rankings or selection, but I know I want to look at the West RAC decision to have Chapman ahead of Mary Hardin-Baylor (UMHB). I know I also want to look at the last teams in and how they compare to the teams that were not selected and that may be it. Stay tuned for that second article and anything else that strikes my interest.

Early on through my mock selection articles and analysis it became rather apparent that Chapman was going to be a struggle to get into the tournament if they needed an at-large. As it turned out, they did need the at-large and they didn’t get one although they probably were under consideration for 15 or so rounds. So, really this article is more than just whether Chapman was properly ranked ahead of UMHB but also whether UMHB had a better chance at an at-large bid if the rankings had been reversed.

First things first, here are the comparisons between Chapman and UMHB when it comes to record and Strength of Schedule (SOS):

Chapman             0.821 & 0.549 UMHB                   0.750 & 0.593

So, we’ve got a split. Chapman has the better record but UMHB has the better SOS. Right off the bat, however, you can see that Chapman has an issue because teams with that low of an SOS really don’t get bids. The record for Mary Hardin-Baylor, however, still plays for an at-large bid.

Pressing forward and the third criterion is head-to-head but these teams did not play each other.

I’ll skip common opponent for now and look at Ranked Wins. Chapman was 3-5 (0.375) while UMHB was 4-7 (0.364). Pretty close looking at the raw number but we have to look at the quality of those teams. The first thing that jumps out at me is that all of Chapman’s losses were to regionally ranked teams while UMHB had one loss to a team that wasn’t regionally ranked (Texas Lutheran). Chapman had a win against CMS and twice against Cal Lutheran. CMS was the West #2 ranked team while Cal Lutheran was the West #8 team. UMHB had wins against Christopher Newport (Mid-Atlantic #2), UT-Dallas (West #3) and I have to stop right here. I swear to everyone that I had no clue that the West RAC moved UTD ahead of Colorado College in their final regional ranking until I just went and looked. I’ll be looking at that (just for grins) at the bottom of this article. The other two UMHB wins were Endicott (New England #7) and Rowan (New York #10 from the previous week). The regionally ranked losses for both teams were both outstanding in the sense that all of the teams were really good. In the end, when looking at Ranked Wins between these two teams, it’s really too close to call. I like the UMHB wins better but the loss to a non-regionally ranked team (TLU) sort of takes that advantage away. I’ll call this a tie for now.

Four criteria down and we basically have a tie. It comes down to common opponent and I’ll tell you that Chapman beat TLU earlier in the year. Their other common opponent was UC Santa Cruz and each team took away a 4-set win. So, common opponent goes to Chapman and we can see why Chapman was ranked ahead of UMHB.

I’m sure this is where the West RAC ended things but I would argue that I would have looked at something that isn’t in the selection criteria and that’s selectability. You already know that Chapman didn’t get an at-large and we’ll look at UMHB’s chances shortly but this possibility would have had me finding reasons to rank UMHB ahead of Chapman. So, how can the West RAC change the rankings when the selection criteria must be used? Well, to start off in this case I don’t count Ranked Wins as a tie as I did above. I give this advantage to UMHB because, as said, I like their wins better. I counted this as a tie because of the TLU loss but that loss also gives Chapman the common opponent advantage. I’m not sure it’s really fair to have that one loss change two criteria and I think it could be argued as such with the selection committee. Still, that leaves us tied and the secondary criteria mainly deals with non-DIII opponents that neither team played (so, no data points). The only other secondary criterion is won-lost percentage during the last 25% of the season and that tips the scale towards UMHB (although it’s not really a fair comparison). You see since UMHB played more matches we look at their last 8 matches (6-2) while Chapman only gets 7 matches considered (5-2). Regardless, you can see how using the primary and secondary selection criteria could have given us UMHB ranked ahead of Chapman.

The next question is whether it would have mattered. Chapman’s problem was that they had a very low SOS and not enough ranked wins. That combination killed all chances. UMHB had a much better SOS with a record that would have been alright in the comparisons. They still had the same problem with ranked wins but they at least had a fighting chance. Looking at the teams that were given at-large bids last from each region, I could make a case for UMHB against a few teams but I’m not sure they would have received a bid. In the end, that’s almost 1000 words telling you that your life would have been better if you hadn’t read this article. Still, I do think UMHB was the better team to be ranked higher and it could have been justified through the criteria. Regardless, when it came to an at-large bid, there wasn’t another West team besides Colorado College that was getting one this past season.

BONUS – So, the West RAC moved Colorado College behind UT-Dallas in the last regional ranking. It didn’t matter because UT-Dallas had a Pool A bid but should it have been done? Colorado College had a better record and a much better SOS. Ranked wins is close although Colorado College has a better record. I can squint and see why the RAC gave the advantage to UT-Dallas but to do so (assuming both teams needed an at-large) would have been a HUGE disservice to the region. Simply put Colorado College was going to get an at-large (and did) but UT-Dallas shared some of the same problems Chapman did. It’s quite possible that if UMHB had won the ASC that UT-Dallas was not going to get an at-large. This would have meant Colorado College would also been shut out as they never would have been considered. Of course, if UMHB had won the ASC I imagine the West RAC wouldn’t have moved UTD ahead of Colorado College. Still, to finish this analysis, since there was no head-to-head result, the RAC also gave common opponent to UT-Dallas. This was most likely due to the results against Trinity by both teams. This puts the teams in a tie and the secondary criteria favors Colorado College when it comes to non-DIII opponents (UTD didn’t play any) but UTD gets the won-lost percentage in the last 25%. What a waste of time and brain power to do all of this when it didn’t matter. In the end, I simply don’t agree with what was done here. I don’t believe that having a better record playing MUCH better opponents should be overruled by results against a few other teams. Further, this entire exercise shows that this RAC was not looking at what teams had a better chance at an at-large bid.