Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Women’s Regional Rankings 12/6/2011

I’ve been doing rankings of this sort on the men’s side of things for a couple of years now, so if you’ve followed me with that then you have a pretty good idea of what I’m doing here. If not, I’ll explain.

The attempt of these rankings is to get an early estimate of what the NCAA’s official rankings will be when they’re released later on in the year (I think the first official set come out in early February, but it may be late January). These rankings are 100% computer based – I don’t adjust them at all.

The base of the ranking system is two of the primary criteria: in-region winning percentage and strength of schedule. For now, I’m combining these two in a strict 50-50 sense. For the men, I apply a few adjustments to attempt to adjust for games versus regionally ranked opponents and whatnot, but I don’t yet have a feel for how the women’s committee compares the various criteria so I’ve decided to just use the basics for now and build up later.

So for now these rankings are literally 0.5 x WP + 0.5 x SOS. This doesn’t include head-to-head play or results versus common opponents, so feel free to adjust the rankings in your head if you see a spot where that may be an issue.

All of my data comes from d3hoops.com. Occasionally games are incorrectly listed as in-region (or not listed as in-region) or scores are reported late. If you notice something is wrong (numbers-wise) with my data set, it’s probably because there is some data missing on d3hoops. This data gets a lot better as the season goes on (I know the d3sports guys are pretty busy right now with football playoffs and men’s and women’s basketball all going on).

Through (most) games of 12/4/2011

NE1WilliamsNESCAC1.0000.6760.8384AC 4-05-00-06-0
NE2EmmanuelGNAC1.0000.6680.8346AC 3-04-10-04-1
NE3Western ConnecticutLEC1.0000.6150.80711AC 7-07-00-07-0
NE7Fitchburg StateMASCAC1.0000.4880.74433AwC7-07-00-07-0
NE9Keene StateLEC0.8330.6220.72746C255-15-10-05-1
NE11New England CollegeCCC1.0000.4340.71748C277-07-00-07-0
NE13Connecticut CollegeNESCAC0.8000.6040.70254C314-14-10-05-1
EA1IthacaE81.0000.6980.8491AC 6-06-00-06-0
EA5Oneonta StateSUNYAC0.7500.7230.73739A3-13-30-03-3
EA6St. LawrenceLL0.7500.6200.68560C353-13-20-03-2
EA7Buffalo StateSUNYAC0.8330.5130.67369C405-15-10-05-1
EA8William SmithLL0.6000.7430.67272A3-23-20-03-2
EA9Oswego StateSUNYAC0.8330.4930.66376C455-15-10-05-1
AT1William PatersonNJAC1.0000.6320.8168AC 6-07-00-07-0
AT3Mary WashingtonCAC1.0000.4750.73838C196-06-00-06-0
AT5York (Pa.)CAC0.8570.5690.71349AwC6-16-10-06-1
AT7Mount St. MarySKY0.8330.5620.69855Abub5-16-10-06-1
AT8St. ElizabethNEAC1.0000.3590.67966C392-02-10-03-2
MA1EasternMACF1.0000.5800.79015AC 4-05-10-05-1
MA2JuniataLAND1.0000.5550.77817AC 7-07-00-07-0
MA4Lebanon ValleyMACC1.0000.4970.74929AwC6-06-00-06-0
MA5Baptist BibleCSAC1.0000.4700.73541AwC3-03-00-04-2
MA7Johns HopkinsCC0.8570.5090.68362C366-16-10-06-1
SO1GreensboroUSAC1.0000.6800.8403AC 5-05-00-05-0
SO3Concordia (Texas)ASC1.0000.6610.8317AC 3-03-00-04-0
SO4Louisiana CollegeASC1.0000.5470.77419C65-05-00-05-0
SO5Eastern MennoniteODAC1.0000.5230.76123AwC5-06-00-06-0
SO7Christopher NewportUSAC0.8330.5300.68264C385-15-10-05-1
GL1HanoverHCAC1.0000.6260.8139AC 3-03-00-03-0
GL7Mount UnionOAC0.8330.5880.71151C285-15-10-05-1
CE1Washington U.UAA1.0000.6200.81010C25-06-10-06-1
CE2ChicagoUAA1.0000.6120.80612AC 6-06-00-06-0
CE3UW-Stevens PointWIAC1.0000.5970.79814AC 6-06-00-06-0
CE4Westminster (Mo.)SLIAC1.0000.4940.74730C143-04-00-05-0
CE5UW-River FallsWIAC1.0000.4930.74731C156-06-00-06-0
CE8UW-Eau ClaireWIAC0.8330.4820.65877C465-15-10-05-2
WE1AugsburgMIAC1.0000.6900.8452AC 3-03-00-03-0
WE2Puget SoundNWC1.0000.5210.76024C103-04-00-05-2
WE3George FoxNWC1.0000.5170.75925C114-04-00-06-0
WE4St. OlafMIAC1.0000.4730.73640C204-04-00-04-0
WE5Gustavus AdolphusMIAC0.7500.7150.73343C223-13-10-03-1
WE7Lewis and ClarkNWC1.0000.3400.67073AwC2-04-00-07-0
WE8St. BenedictMIAC0.7500.5210.63687C543-13-10-03-1

Here’s how to read the chart, starting with the far left:

Obviously the first column is simply the region designation. The second column is the rank in the region. I like to rank three more teams than the NCAA does (I think they’ve done 10 in the NE and six everywhere else in the past, correct me if I’m wrong there). From there we get to see the teams and the conference followed by the beginning of the numbers.

The ‘WP’ column is the team’s in-region winning percentage, and ‘SOS’ is their in-region strength of schedule. From there I calculate what I call ‘RPI50’. This is .5 x WP + .5 x SOS. I am ranking teams according to this number. It’s simple, and obviously incomplete, but it will probably get us 70% of the way to the ‘real’ rankings.

Next are just a few items of interest. The ‘Nat.’ column shows each ranked team’s national ranking (of RPI50). The ‘Pool’ column projects which NCAA selection pool each team would be eligible for. The team in each AQ conference with the best RPI among all of their D3 games (number not shown) gets designated with Pool A. I don’t use the actual standings because these bids are (nine and a half times out of ten) handed out after a conference tournament. I designate one team for Pool B by simply taking the highest ranked team of the eligible group (independent teams). The rest of the teams are designated as being eligible for ‘Pool C’.

The ‘Status’ column is an indication of where each team stands within their projected pool. Pool B and C teams show a number that corresponds to their ranked position within the pool. One Pool B team will make the tournament, and 20 Pool C teams will make the tournament. Pool A teams are designated with symbols. A ‘C’ indicates that the team is currently one of the top 20 teams in the nation (according to RPI50), this would mean that a loss in a conference tourney would likely result in a very safe Pool C berth. A ‘wC’ means that the team is currently ranked inside of the range set by the top 20 Pool C teams. If a ‘Pool A, wC’ team lost in a conference tournament, they would have a very good chance of receiving a Pool C berth. A ‘bub’ designation indicates that the Pool A team would be on the bubble if they were lumped in with the Pool C crowd. I’m calling the bubble as the range defined by the “next ten” teams (Pool C teams ranked from 21 to 30).

Obviously it’s too early to seriously talk tournament selection, but I’ll be using the same format all year. Following the ‘Status’ column are four sets of team records: regional record, record versus D3 teams, record versus regionally ranked teams, and overall record.

Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed.

No comments:

Post a Comment