First NCAA regional rankings
Apr
2007
The NCAA Division III baseball committee released its first regional rankings of the 2007 season Thursday afternoon.
The number of teams ranked is relative to the number of teams in each region. These rankings take into account the same criteria the NCAA will use to select and seed at-large teams for the playoffs.
The first record listed is the overall record, followed by record in regional games, through April 24.
Central
1. Luther 18-3, 21-5
2. Wartburg 18-5, 21-8
3. Washington U. 24-6, 25-8
4. Illinois Wesleyan 19-4, 22-8
5. Edgewood 18-8, 22-9
6. Augustana 18-7, 23-8
6. Webster 17-6, 23-10
Mid-Atlantic
1. Kean 21-4, 25-6
2. New Jersey 18-5, 23-8
3. Johns Hopkins 22-6, 26-6
4. Ramapo 22-5, 26-8
5. Arcadia 19-7, 21-8
6. Alvernia 22-10, 23-10
7. Franklin and Marshall 14-5, 19-10
8. Gettysburg 17-4, 18-5
Mideast
1. Otterbein 19-4, 22-7
2. Wooster 26-1, 33-1
3. Marietta 14-4, 21-8
4. Thomas More 18-5, 20-6
5. Washington and Jefferson 17-6, 21-7
6. Ohio Wesleyan 10-4, 14-9
7. Transylvania 18-8, 21-9
Midwest
1. St. Olaf 20-2, 25-2
2. UW-Oshkosh 23-5, 23-5
3. Ripon 11-1, 14-9
4. St. Thomas 15-7, 21-8
5. St. Scholastica 13-3, 23-4
6. UW-Stevens Point 13-6, 16-11
New England
1. Eastern Connecticut State 17-3, 21-7
2. Western New England 19-4, 22-8
3. Wheaton (Mass.) 22-8, 23-9
4. St. Joseph’s (Maine) 21-5, 23-5
5. Southern Maine 15-6, 19-7
6. Keene State 16-7, 20-9
7. Williams 13-6, 16-7
8. Curry 14-4, 18-6
T9. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5, 22-5
T9. Tufts 11-5, 18-8
New York
1. Cortland State 21-3, 28-3
2. RPI 11-6, 13-6
3. Brockport State 18-6, 21-10
4. Ithaca 11-4, 16-8
5. St. John Fisher 14-6, 14-6
T6. Centenary 16-6, 21-9
T6. Rochester Tech 9-5, 13-7
South
1. Emory 31-6, 32-7
2. Salisbury 19-6, 26-7
3. York (Pa.) 20-8, 25-8
4. Methodist 23-10, 28-11
5. Rhodes 26-8, 35-8
6. Mary Washington 20-9-1, 24-10-1
West
1. Chapman 24-2, 30-5
2. George Fox 22-5, 27-5
3. Pacific Lutheran 25-6, 29-7
4. Texas Lutheran 22-7, 30-7-1
5. Texas-Dallas 26-7, 29-9
6. Pomona-Pitzer 20-7, 26-10
April 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Okay! Let’s start to get a handle on these first regional rankings.
I will start by making some assumptions. The highest ranked team in a Pool A conference is assumed to keep the Pool A bid for the rest of the season including the conference tourney.
Secondly, we shall assume that all regions are equally tough. (Yeah, that may not be entirely accurate, but we have to start somewhere. Besides, a good rule of thumb is to subtract the total number of games played from 40 and realize how many regular/conference games remain. You know how unpredictable conference can be!)
Thirdly, post-season tourneys usually are on a multiple loss format for elimination, so lots of good teams will be picking up more in-region losses. The in-region won-loss number is muy importante! practically speaking, the only reason I look at regular season record is see how many games remain.
Emory is 32-7 with no post-season tourney. They are done.
Southern Maine is 19-7. They may have one-third of the regular season remaining.
On the first time through, we will list the Pool A bids as projected by these assumptions.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Central
1. Luther 18-3 21-5 Iowa IAC Pool A
2. Wartburg 18-5 21-8
3. Washington U. 24-6 25-8
4. Illinois Wesleyan 19-4 22-8 CCIW Pool A
5. Edgewood 18-8 22-9
6. Augustana 18-7 23-8
6. Webster 17-6 23-10 SLIAC Pool A
Mid-Atlantic
1. Kean 21-4 25-6 NJAC Pool A
2. New Jersey 18-5 23-8
3. Johns Hopkins 22-6 26-6 Centennial Pool A
4. Ramapo 22-5 26-8
5. Arcadia 19-7 21-8 Pennsylvania Pool A
6. Alvernia 22-10 23-10
7. Franklin and Marshall 14-5 19-10
8. Gettysburg 17-4 18-5
Mideast
1. Otterbein 19-4 22-7 Ohio AC Pool A
2. Wooster 26-1 33-1 NCAC Pool A
3. Marietta 14-4 21-8
4. Thomas More 18-5 20-6
5. Washington and Jefferson 17-6 21-7
6. Ohio Wesleyan 10-4 14-9
7. Transylvania 18-8 21-9 HCAC Pool A
Midwest
1. St. Olaf 20-2 25-2 Minn IAC Pool A
2. UW-Oshkosh 23-5 23-5 WIAC Pool A
3. Ripon 11-1 14-9 MWC Pool A
4. St. Thomas 15-7 21-8
5. St. Scholastica 13-3 23-4
6. UW-Stevens Point 13-6 16-11
New England
1. Eastern Connecticut State 17-3 21-7 Little East Pool A
2. Western New England 19-4 22-8 GNAC Pool A
3. Wheaton (Mass.) 22-8 23-9 NEWMAC Pool A
4. St. Joseph’s (Maine) 21-5 23-5 North Atlantic (NAC) Pool A
5. Southern Maine 15-6 19-7
6. Keene State 16-7 20-9
7. Williams 13-6 16-7 NESCAC Pool A
8. Curry 14-4 18-6 CCC Pool A
T9. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5 22-5
T9. Tufts 11-5 18-8
New York
1. Cortland State 21-3 28-3 SUNYAC Pool A
2. RPI 11-6 13-6 LIberty League Pool A
3. Brockport State 18-6 21-10
4. Ithaca 11-4 16-8
5. St. John Fisher 14-6 14-6
T6. Centenary 16-6 21-9 Skyline Pool A
T6. Rochester Tech 9-5 13-7
South
1. Emory 31-6 32-7
2. Salisbury 19-6 26-7
3. York (Pa.) 20-8 25-8
4. Methodist 23-10 28-11 (Ferrum has USAC Pool a bid.)
5. Rhodes 26-8 35-8 SCAC Pool A
6. Mary Washington 20-9-1 24-10-1
West
1. Chapman 24-2 30-5
2. George Fox 22-5 27-5
3. Pacific Lutheran 25-6 29-7 NWC Pool A (If they win 2 of 3 vs L&C this weekend. No post-season tourney)
4. Texas Lutheran 22-7 30-7-1 ASC
5. Texas-Dallas 26-7 29-9
6. Pomona-Pitzer 20-7 26-10 SCIAC
April 26th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Now let’s look at the Pool B’s and Pool C’s. Remember that 5 Pool B’s are awarded and 15 Pool C’s.
Central
2. Wartburg 18-5 21-8 Pool C #3
3. Washington U. 24-6 25-8 Pool B #4
5. Edgewood 18-8 22-9 Pool B/C#11
T6. Augustana 18-7 23-8
Mid-Atlantic
2. New Jersey 18-5 23-8 Pool C#2
4. Ramapo 22-5 26-8 Pool C#6
6. Alvernia 22-10 23-10
7. Franklin and Marshall 14-5 19-10
8. Gettysburg 17-4 18-5
Mideast
3. Marietta 14-4 21-8 Pool C#4
4. Thomas More 18-5 20-6 Pool B/C #7 (Look! The Saints have only played 26 games.)
5. Washington and Jefferson 17-6 21-7 Pool B/C#12
6. Ohio Wesleyan 10-4 14-9
Midwest
4. St. Thomas 15-7 21-8 Pool C#8
5. St. Scholastica 13-3 23-4 Pool B/C #13
6. UW-Stevens Point 13-6 16-11
New England
5. Southern Maine 15-6 19-7 Pool C #14
6. Keene State 16-7 20-9
T9. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5 22-5
T9. Tufts 11-5 18-8
New York
3. Brockport State 18-6 21-10 Pool C#5
4. Ithaca 11-4 16-8 Pool B/C#9
5. St. John Fisher 14-6 14-6 Pool C#15
T6. Rochester Tech 9-5 13-7
South
1. Emory 31-6 32-7 Pool B#2
2. Salisbury 19-6 26-7 Pool B#3
3. York (Pa.) 20-8 25-8 Pool B#5
4. Methodist 23-10 28-11 (Ferrum has USAC Pool A bid.) Pool C#10
6. Mary Washington 20-9-1 24-10-1
West
1. Chapman 24-2 30-5 Pool B#1
2. George Fox 22-5 27-5 Pool C#1
5. Texas-Dallas 26-7 29-9 Pool C #16.
Where a Pool B team has fallen to consideration in Pool C, we have designated that team as B/C.
Please consider that this does not include the very important Qulaity of Wins Index that the committee members have available to them. Nevertheless, this is quite informative.
We shall begin coverage of the post-season tourneys this weekend.
Check back often.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Ordered by Pool and Bid number from Ralph’s post above
Pool B
1. Chapman 24-2 30-5 Pool B#1
1. Emory 31-6 32-7 Pool B#2
2. Salisbury 19-6 26-7 Pool B#3
3. Washington U. 24-6 25-8 Pool B #4
3. York (Pa.) 20-8 25-8 Pool B#5
Poll C
2. George Fox 22-5 27-5 Pool C#1
2. New Jersey 18-5 23-8 Pool C#2
2. Wartburg 18-5 21-8 Pool C #3
3. Marietta 14-4 21-8 Pool C#4
3. Brockport State 18-6 21-10 Pool C#5
4. Ramapo 22-5 26-8 Pool C#6
4. Thomas More 18-5 20-6 Pool B/C #7
4. St. Thomas 15-7 21-8 Pool C#8
4. Ithaca 11-4 16-8 Pool B/C#9
4. Methodist 23-10 28-11 (Ferrum has USAC Pool A bid.) Pool C#10
5. Edgewood 18-8 22-9 Pool B/C#11
5. Washington and Jefferson 17-6 21-7 Pool B/C#12
5. St. Scholastica 13-3 23-4 Pool B/C #13
5. Southern Maine 15-6 19-7 Pool C #14
5. St. John Fisher 14-6 14-6 Pool C#15
5. Texas-Dallas 26-7 29-9 Pool C #16.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
One correction…Pac Lutheran won the series over George Fox, so PLU only needs to win one game versus L&C.
Corrections are always appreciated!
April 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Not that it matters at this point, but can someone explain to me how U. of Rochester gets overlooked and not get listed at all? How are the seeds determined, and what makes RIT, St. John Fisher and maybe even RPI be ranked above UR?
I know there is a “bigger picture” to this post-season play, and Pool C slots might not be so important to some, but these kids at UR have played some good baseball this season against some very good teams, and have put themselves in a better position for next season. Why don’t they get any attention?
The ABCA, prior to this week, gave Rochester some attention as well as Rochester being ranked above RPI, St. John Fisher, and even Ithaca in the New York regional rankings. RIT wasn’t even listed and you don’t even list St. Lawrence. Yes UR lost to Brockport and Ithaca this week, but its not like they shouldn’t have been even playing against those two schools. I think U. of Rochester needs to get some consideration. JMHO
April 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Boomer, welcome. I don’t have time to research your question re: Rochester, but as I wrote on the front page yesterday, please read the Handbook.
The NCAA is very specific about the criteria and I am confident that the coaches had enough data to make a good assessment of the New York Evaluation Region.
It looks like Rochester’s hopes lie in winning the Liberty League Tourney for the bid. The at-large bids seem to be falling differently this year.
And yes, if they want to make the case coming out of the New York Region, they need to schedule and defeat Brockport and Ithaca.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Ralph,
I did read part of the handbook the other day, and I basically understand how things work. I know that you have to give the teams that are consistent from year-to-year the benefit of the doubt in most cases. I just think that sometimes it becomes more difficult to slot a team that hasn’t been there before. I also see some teams playing the ‘waiting game’ if I can be as so bold to say, that take advantage of weather, scheduling, to gain perrenial consideration for a spot in a pool. Maybe I’m coming off as sounding like ’sour grapes,’ and that is not my intention, but I’m just trying to understand what the “playing field” is all about.
Rochester has played some good baseball this season so far, and they have been challenged. It would be great for this young team (three seniors) to get a taste of competition at the next level. Because baseball is such a great game with so many variables regarding player performances, by-and-large, teams can control their own destiny by winning or losing. Winning makes it easier!!
Ralph, thanks for your feedback, its appreciated!!
April 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Boomer, actually the criteria make it more difficult just to slot a team because they have been there the year before.
That is how we can get a St Scholastica breaking thru or an Edgewood. I think that the numbers that the committee gets helps make the case for the newcomers.
I can see the nucleus of the team building on this season, especially if they have a good last half.
Good luck!
April 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I went to the Rochester website and saw that they have had 9 games canceled this year. The “global warming” just didn’t make it that far north!
The tourney will be very important!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
So, my one question is this: How can we even have a general idea of at large seedings, when these rankings don’t take into consideration quality of wins. For example, in the New England region, I know that WNEC, Trinity, Curry, Williams, and Tufts have had very weak non-conferance schedules. They have MINIMAL non-conferance wins versus nationally or even regionally ranked opponents. In my mind, right now the New England Region is poorly judged. Please let me know your thoughts Ralph.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Quality of Wins Index is indeed one of the criteria they use to create these rankings.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Regarding WNEC, they have some very good out of conference wins including Otterbein, Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and Westfield State which I believe is helping in their ranking in the New England region.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
B2islegit, Good Morning! This is the first real year for us to have a forum on D3baseball as we D3football.com and D3hoops.com fans have had.
The blogs and the message boards have attracted more information and analyses. I am reluctant to make grand generalizations without more data.
Extrapolating from the basketball experience, we know that there is a wide disparity in the quality of New England D3 baseball. We also know that the New England Region, and especially the Little East Conference, manages to send some great teams to the D3World Series.
QOWI (Quality of Wins Index) is one of the criteria. We saw a large representaion of QOWI numbers from New England teams at the top of D3 in basketball QOWI listings. I am sure that we would see the same thing in baseball. One thing about the QOWI is that it does give more value to wins over teams with better records. A road win over a team with an in-region record of 17-8 is worth 15 points. A home win over a team with an in-region record of 8-17 is worth 8 points. Those differences mount up quickly.
One plays the “QOWI game” by beating the “above average” conference representative (Team A) from a “below average” conference. That team (Team A) has wins over weak schools and grades out artificially high on the QOWI.
The Championships Committee is evaluating and opponents’ opponents’ record for D3 team sports for 2007-08. Also, the selection committee will be looking a who is left on the table from all regions when they are comparing teams. It will be the upsets in the conference tourneys that impact the New England Region Pool C candidates most prominently.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Rbgosfan, the In-Region games for WNEC include: all conference games; all teams in the New England Evaluation Region; all teams within an 200-mile radius of the campus by “msn.mappoint.com shortest distance”; and all schools from NCAA Administration Region #1 including New England, NJ, DE, DC and MD.
The Otterbein and UW-Stevens Point games do not count towards the Primary Criteria.
Please read the Handbook!
April 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Ralph, why did the admin respond to my post saying that the Quality of Wins index was indeed included in those rankings? I read your post from April 26th at 7:10 PM that said “Please consider that this does not include the very important Qulaity of Wins Index that the committee members have available to them.” I am confused as to which is true. Next, I see what you are saying about the “QOWI game” and I don’t like how a team can boost its points by beating teams that have good records simply because those opponents have weak schedules and play in weak conferances. Also, are wins against regionally and nationally ranked teams taken into consideration significantly or no? What I mean is, are these wins highly considered by the comittee or not really. Thanks for getting back to me.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:59 am
B2islegit,
I am sorry that I misled you. On the men’s hoops boards, especially the Pool B and Pool C message boards, you can find the QOWI rankings in descending order. I did not have those actual numbers and could not refer to them.
The committee did use those numbers in the regional rankings, and so there must be some proximity of the QOWI to the rankings as we see them. With respect to that specific list, I just assumed that every 3rd ranked team in each region has a QOWI that was equal to every other 3rd ranked team.
I hope this helps.
May I ask which team(s) you follow or are interested in for these playoffs?
April 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for the input, I follow Eastern Conn mainly, but I was stunned as to why Babson didn’t make their way onto the rankings after they beat EConn 4-2 at EConn, and after checking their schedule they seem to have a number of impressive wins. I just found out they also finished 2nd in the NEWMAC tourney, losing both their games to #7 in the nation Wheaton. They split with Wheaton during the season though. Also, they split with Trinity, beat Suffolk, and have an impressive 23-12 overall record. Now 3 of their 12 losses are against Wheaton, and 1 against Trinity. How they haven’t gotten any recognition is beyond me. What do you think? They must be a big at-large contender.
April 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Babson has some very bad losses, B2. Check their schedule. Bad losses can kill your index. You can’t lose to Plymouth St., Clark, Coast Guard, and expect an at-large bid.
I agree about the NESCAC teams having weak non conf. opponents, although Williams has beaten RPI and plays WNEC this week, and Tufts plays ECSU and a doubleheader with Babson this week.
April 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Yes, but if you look at the handbook, losses against those 3 teams do not hurt them that badly, because of the legitimate teams they have beaten, especially the ones they won on the road, which make up HUGE points lost.
RPI is not an impressive win. While they may be 19-8, they stacked their Florida trip with easy opponents, which accounted for 9 of their wins. Not to mention 8 more coming from conferance games, which are VERY weak. Williams will be tested vs WNEC, who will go easy after already clinching a NCAA birth, and I think Tufts will definitely come down to earth after playing EConn this week.
April 29th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
The win over RPI is still the most valuable win when it comes to your index.
B2, it doesn’t matter if great wins “cancel out” bad losses. To get a Pool C bid, you need great wins and you need to avoid bad losses. It’s all about the numbers….
April 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Southern Maine was swept by Keene st. yesterday, so their pool c chances could be minimal.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Ralph, thanks for the update. I had read the handbook but not carefully enough. I missed the distincition on regional wins.
Not sure WNEC will go easy this week, they still need wins to shore up their seeding in the regional. It will be a tough week with Williams and then 2 with Wheaton.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Bostonian, you are right about the chances in Pool C. “You don’t lose to bad teams, and you win as many as you can of the rest.’
One of my off-season projects that I want to do is to go back to the Pool C candidates in men’s basketball hoops to see what it would take for the next 10-15 bubble teams to have made the playoffs.
By rough calculations, each loss on 30 in-region games drops the QOWI by 0.24 points. Three losses drop a QOWI by 0.72.
On 40 in-region games, a loss drops the QOWI by 0.20 points per loss.
Please follow me here.
A home loss to an 8-17 team is 0 points.
A home win over an 8-17 team is only 8 points.
Going 2-1 in a home series over a 8-17 team gives you 8 + 8 + 0 = 16 points for an average of 5.333 QOWI.
Winning a 3-game series on the road over a 17-8 team gives you 15 points in one win, 15 points in the second win and 7 points in the loss. That averages 12.333 on the QOWI. That earns a Pool C bid.
I hope that helps.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Yep.
Any loss to a tier 4 (8-17) team is a killer. In fact, losing to a tier 3 (12-20) can play games with NE teams because they play fewer in region games.
Look at Tufts. They only play 22 in region games this year. Now 6 are against tier 1 (18-7), 6 are against tier 2 (17-10), 4 are against tier 3 (12-20), and 8 are against tier 4(7-18). The have 1 loss against a tier 3 on the road, and they are 3-2 in the tier 1 matchups. That is why they get a better ranking than Babson, which has too many tier 3 and 4 losses that kill their index. I think people forget that the index is the “average” of all of the numbers collected in the schedule.
Tufts finishes with Eastern Ct and Babson (2), so they could really help their pool c chances if they take 2 of 3. Gonna be tough though because they just lost their best player to an injury…again…top 2 pitchers and #3 and #4 are now out of the lineup, yet Casey keeps on getting them to win.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Question…
What index # is the target for a Pool c bid? I’m assuming it’s somewhere around 10? Right?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
So Ralph, what do you make of Babson’s chances at a bid based on what I mentioned above?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I’m not Ralph, but Babson has absolutely no shot.
They should get an ECAC bid.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Bostonian, I have never seen a list of the QOWI’s in baseball like we have on D3Hoops.com. I think that 10.000 may be a good estimate.
I know that Pat Coleman and Jim Dixon are working to get the schedules online and up-to-date. It seems that D3scoreboard.com has developed the technology that several influential conferences have adopted for reporting scores.
It has taken Pat 10 years to get the infrastructure to this point. I am excited about the changes that Jim can put in place for this website this summer.
In any case, this may the last year for QOWI, as the Championships Committee is looking at Opponents’ Opponents’ Records next year.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Actually, we are not working on getting 2007 baseball schedules online and up to date.
http://www.d3baseball.com/faq/category/Game+Day
April 30th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Sorry that I did not put a timeline on that progress. I forgot to add that Pat has a whole host of background people that chase down basketball scores, and usually basketball doesn’t have near the postponements and cancellations in their 25-game schedule that we see in the 40-game baseball schedule. Just the number of scheduled regular season games increases the baseball workload by 160%.
Not speaking for Pat, I would be tickled pink if we could get the SID’s and conference commissioners to jump on board and have this thing going by Spring 2010.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Bostonian, I know you are not Ralph, I was talking to Ralph Turner when I asked about Babson’s chances at the at-large bid. What are your grounds for saying that Babson has absolutely no shot? Look at their wins, not to mention win percentages as good, if not better than the top teams in New England, with more games played. Also, what is your connection to D3 baseball?
What I want is Ralph’s opinion on Babson’s chances…Ralph?
April 30th, 2007 at 10:26 am
B2,
My grounds for saying Babson has no shot is their QQWI (index). It will max out around 9.3 if they sweep Tufts and beat S. Maine in their final 3 games. 9.3 will still be too low of an index to get in, in my opinion. The bad losses have KILLED their index. I would also like Ralph’s opinion, too, as he knows a boatload more than me about this stuff…
I am a Legion coach with a bunch of players in NE Div III. My brother is a captain at Tufts. He was their #1 untill a freak broken arm injury killed his career. Tufts also needs to sweep their final 3 vs. Eastern CT and Babson to be a serious Pool C contender. I also have ex-players at WPI, Johnson and Wales, RIC, Ithaca, and Union.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
B2, let’s see what happens in this week’s Regional Rankings.
We are already seeing some “Cinderellas” and “near-Cinderellas” upsetting the top seeds to win the AQ’s.
Austin College’s winning the SCAC put two strong SCAC teams (Rhodes and Millsaps) into the Pool C mix. Pac Lutheran won the NWC and put 2004 D3 Champion George Fox into Pool C.
The ASC has its tourney this weekend. Texas Lutheran and UT-Dallas are the ranked teams. McMurry could win the whole thing, tho’ and throw 2 more teams in the Pool C mix.
And that just covers the West.
If Babson is not in the New England Regional Rankings this week, I don’t think they get a Pool C bid.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Bostonian, your beginning to look thru the QOWI’s and trying to get a ballpark value is what we need.
Let’s use this format (and realize that a loss by another opponent in the schedule can change the QOWI instantly).
Number of QOWI points calculated in the numerator e.g., 273 QOWI points
Number of in-region games in the denominator e.g., 30 games
Divide and then we get the Quality of Wins Index or 9.100.
Our experience in basketball and football is that we double-check the denominator (the number of in-region games) and then we confirm the numerator. A single loss can drop the QOWI by 0.200 or 0.300 points.
One less loss in the team above changes the numerator to 281. That raises the Index to 9.36666666….
Corrections are always appreciated.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Bostonian and Ralph,
Thanks for your responses. I see what you are saying about the QOWI and I guess we’ll have to wait and see the regional rankings this week. What day do they come out?
Bostonian, what happened to your brother is just awful. It must be real tough ending his career on an injury like that. I think its cool that you follow NE DIII and your ex-players closely, and thanks again for the input.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I was just looking at WNEC’s out of league schedule and was quite impressed. #1 Otterbein, #4 Wisconsin Steven’s Point, #6 Cortland St., East Conn which is #11 now, and #7 Wheaton twice. Not to mention Hope, Williams, Bowdoin, and Westfield State (undefeated in MASCAC). I was wondering, what is the advantage (besides becoming better baseball players) of scheduling top competition like Otterbein, Stevens Point, Cortland, and Hope if only in region games count towards the Primary Critera???
April 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Wildthing, I think that answer depends on your coach’s needs that year.
I think that the perfect schedule should include as many D3 opponents as your geography permits.
It should include at least 30 in-region games, geography permitting.
You can use the other 10 games to play quality opponents. An out-of-region opponent lets your team see quality D3 teams and judge for themselves how much work they need.
The Northwest Conference teams meet the SCIAC teams in Arizona as in-region games in February.
NJAC teams come to Chapman in March for quality matchups.
A local D1, D2 or NAIA may be a good rival to boost local interest.
If you take a spring trip, do you want to stay in your administrative region? Wheaton (MA) playing Tufts or Fitchburg State in Florida on a spring training trip still counts as an in-region game. Wheaton (MA) playing Emory is not in-region, but lots of fans would like to see that game.
Marietta comes to Abilene to play McMurry, Hardin-Simmons and UT-Dallas. Those are not in-region, but make for good challenges. Marietta even plays NAIA power Texas Wesleyan just because the game is played at the historic LaGrave Field, home of the famous Fort Worth Cats.
http://www.fwcats.com/feature_display.cfm?id=8
I think that the coach can use a 40-game schedule to his best advantage.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Wildthing, You hit the best reason, it improves your team to play quality opponents. In the case of WNEC; the games against Otterbein, Hope, Cortland and Stevens Point were all part of their season opening trip to Florida where the coach does not have total control over the schedule. The organizers down in Port Charlotte try to get the best matchups possible with the teams that are there at the same time. Clearly those tough games early in the year helped WNEC when they came back North. They are on a roll right now and have the pitching to make some noise come tournament time. In 33 games they have yielded only 98 runs.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
how many njac teams have a shot to make the ncaa regionals?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Anyone know when the new regional rankings come out? I’m talking about the ones that are based on the points the committee uses. Thanks.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
According to the handbook, the next rankings will be out on May 3, another set on May 10 and the selections May 14.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Thanks Rb
May 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Way to go Rbgosfan!
Way to check the Handbook!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Haha, I have read the handbook multiple times, so legit. Can’t wait to see the rankings on the 3rd.