D3baseball.com Daily Dose

47 Responses to “Regional Rankings”

1. dixon Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

   Regionally ranked teams by in region winning %

   Salisbury
   Ithaca
   Chapman
   Rockford
   Piedmont
   Emory
   ———–
   Concordia (Ill.)
   St Joseph (Broklyn)
   St. John Fisher
   Cal State East Bay

2. dixon Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

   the previous list id for Pool B bid teams only.

   Regionally ranked B Pool teams by overall winning %
   Salisbury
   Chapman
   Piedmont
   Ithaca
   Concordia (Ill.)
   Emory
   ————
   St. Joseph (Broklyn)
   Rockford
   St. John Fisher
   Cal State East Bay

3. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

   Pool B teams by in-region won-loss percentage (one of the primary criteria in the Handbook.)

   1) Salisbury 32-2 .941
   2) Ithaca 19-2 .904
   3) Chapman 22-3 .880
   4) Rockford 17-5 .772
   5) Piedmont 27-9 .750
   6) Emory 22-8-1 .726
   ——————————–
   7 ) Concordia IL 17-9 .654
   8 ) CSU-East Bay 14-9 .609
   9) St John Fisher 11-7-1 .605

4. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

   Respectfully, Jim,

   I think that the St Joesph’s that they are listing is St Joseph’s of Long Island in the Skyline Conference and not the D-III Provisional St Joseph’s of Brooklyn.

   And conspicuously absent from Mid-Atlantic Region is Juniata from the Pool B Landmark Conference.

   And duh, sorry for the duplicate post on the in-region percentage!

5. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

   The number of teams ranked in a Region is roughly one team for every 6.5 teams in the region.

   Central — 40 teams (6 bids times 6.5 = 39)

   Mid-Atlantic — 57 teams (9 times 6.5 = 58.5)

   Mideast — 47 teams (7 times 6.5 = 45.5)

   Midwest — 30 teams (5 times 6.5 = 32.5)

   New England — 62 teams (9 times 6.5 = 58.5)

   New York — 37 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)

   South — 38 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)

   West — 40 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)

6. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

   Central Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Carthage* (26-1; 20-1) CCIW
   2 Illinois Wesleyan (21-6; 20-2)
   3 Augustana (23-7; 16-5)
   4 Rockford (19-10; 17-5)
   5 Simpson* (20-12; 17-7) IIAC
   6 Concordia (Ill.) (23-8; 19-7)

   SLIAC leader is not ranked.

   Mid-Atlantic Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 TCNJ* (25-6; 23-6) NJAC
   2 Johns Hopkins* (27-4; 24-3) CC
   3 Rowan (25-8; 21-6)
   4 Montclair State (19-11; 17-6)
   5 Penn State-Behrend* (23-7; 21-4) AMCC
   6 Kean (27-8; 21-6)
   7 Alvernia* (28-8; 24-5) PnAC
   8 Manhattanville* (21-10; 17-9) MAC-F
   9 Elizabethtown* (19-9; 15-8) MAC-C

   NEAC leader is not regionally ranked.

   Mideast Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Wooster* ( 29-5; 23-4) NCAC
   2 Thomas More* ( 18-8; 12-2) Pres AC
   3 Mount St. Joseph* ( 18-13; 14-4) HCAC
   4 Adrian * (21-6; 16-6) MIAA
   5 Calvin (19-6; 12-4)
   6 Franklin (20-10; 19-8)
   7 Heidelberg* (25-7; 19-7) OAC

   Midwest Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 UW-Oshkosh* (20-5; 20-5) WIAC
   2 St. Thomas* (19-5; 11-3) MIAC
   3 UW-Whitewater (23-4; 20-4)
   4 UW-Stevens Point (19-8; 16-4)
   5 Ripon* (18-13; 10-0) MWC

   New England Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Trinity (Conn.)* (27-0; 18-0) NESCAC
   2 Wheaton (Mass.)* (27-7; 24-5) NEWMAC
   3 Keene State* (24-5; 21-4) LEC
   4 Eastern Conn. St. ( 20-10-1; 16-7-1)
   5 Roger Williams* (26-9; 23-6) CCC
   6 Amherst (16-7-1; 13-4-1)
   7 Curry (20-4-1; 19-4-1)
   8 Babson (25-8; 24-7)
   9 Suffolk* (23-8; 20-7) GNAC

   MASCAC and NAC leaders are not ranked.

   New York Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Cortland State* (27-3; 18-0) SUNYAC
   2 Ithaca (23-8; 19-2)
   3 RPI* (25-4; 19-3) LL
   4 Rochester (24-7; 23-7)
   5 St. John Fisher (15-8-1; 11-7-1)
   6 St. Joseph’s, L.I. (21-9-1; 20-8-1) SKY

   South Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Salisbury (36-2; 32-2)
   2 Piedmont (29-9; 27-9)
   3 Lynchburg* (28-9; 22-6) ODAC
   4 Emory (24-10-1; 22-8-1)
   5 Christopher Newport* (27-9; 20-8) USAC
   6 N.C. Wesleyan (27-13-1; 22-11-1)

   SCAC leader is not ranked.

   West Region
   Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
   1 Chapman (28-3; 22-3)
   2 Texas-Tyler* (33-7; 30-7) ASC
   3 Linfield* (29-7; 27-6) NWC
   4 Pomona-Pitzer* (27-7; 18-6) SCIAC
   5 Redlands (26-11; 19-6)
   6 Cal State East Bay (20-13; 14-9)

7. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   Lynchburg’s elimination in the ODAC tourney this morning leaves them the #1 non-A/ non-B school in last week’s regional ranking. At 30-11 (overall) 24-8 (in region), they appear to be the first team off the table from the South Region.

   The Regional Rankings for the second week should be quite instructive. In general, the South Region teams finish their schedules sufficiently ahead of Selection Sunday, that there should be little movement in the Regional Rankings. The USA South runner-up is the prime school contending for that first Pool C bid awarded to a South Region team. (Current projections suggest that Salisbury, Piedmont and Emory go in Pool B. Let’s watch the Central Region’s Rockford and Concordia IL as Pool B’s that might knock Emory back into Pool C.) The most important criterion that I see on Lynchburg’s schedule is the win over North Carolina Wesleyan.

8. Ralph Turner Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

   One point of clarification…

   At-large bids are not allocated to specific regions, but rather the schools in each region are ranked respectively in the region.

   Then, the teams at the head of the lists of all 8 regions are considered one at a time, the best of each group of eight receiving that Pool C bid, until all 14 Pool C bids are awarded. If Lynchburg is the best non-A/ non-B bid school from the South Region on selection Sunday, they will be considered with 7 other schools for a Pool C bid until all 14 Pool C bids are awarded.

9. dixon Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

   With the Lynchburg loss. I see Christopher Newport, NC Wesleyan, Lynchburg, ODAC winner, Piedmont and Emory in a South regional with Salisbury moving to the Mid-Atlantic. If Emory misses the playoffs, the South can include Salisbury.

   If Millsaps wins the SCAC I can see a possible 8-team regional with Christopher Newport, NC Wesleyan, Lynchburg, ODAC winner, Piedmont, Emory, Salisbury and Millsaps.

   More than likely the SCAC winner will move to the Central or West Region, leaving the South a 6-team regional.

10. fanofball Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    As a fan of the CAC, and a parent of a UMW ball player, I understand that Lynchburg’s loss in the ODAC tournament severely hurts our chances. But since you all seem pretty knowledgeable, does Mary Washington have ANY chance still?

    Quick Bio: 25-12. 6 of 12 losses coming from TOP FIVE teams in the country (#4Salisbury & #3Cortland State). This is NO patty cake schedule. Finished 2nd in both regular season and CAC championship to #4 Salisbury.

    They have already beat 2 tournament teams: Salisbury (snapping 35 game winning streak), CNU (already in regional tournament. Also I read above that the CAC is weak. However CNU just lost to UMW, Salisbury and split with York this week).

    There is a lot of talk about NC Wes. They are having a great year as well. Mary Wash plays them in a double header to end the year at NC Wes. UMW also has one game vs. #6 Johns Hopkins still.

    I guess my question is, if UMW was to win those games, where would they stand? Thanks for reading!

11. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Okay Jim, let’s run your total of Pool C’s that you have assessed as of this date. Of course, we can let you come back and bump one of the Pool C bids that you have prognosticated, depending on the carnage occurring in the Post Season Tourneys.

    Pool C bids projected to South Region schools
    NC Wesleyan
    Lynchburg

    12 remain…

    Update from the SCAC Livestats…

    Trinity TX SS Stosh Hoover hits a bases-loaded 2-out, 2-run single to right center field off Millsaps pitcher Hunter Abram to win the SCAC tourney 6-5.
    in Game #7.

    Trinity is headed to Abilene for the West Regional! Millsaps is counting on miracles to earn a Pool C bid. Since no SCAC team was ranked regionally in the first release, the SCAC’s getting a Pool C bid must be a “long shot”.

12. dixon Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    With Trinity (Texas) winning the SCAC, I also expect them to slide into the west regional. It is possible to see the SCIAC champion, Chapman, the ASC, the NWC champion, Trinity and one more. With MHB and Ozarks losing in the ASC, it is possible that if Texas-Tyler stumbles both teams will be left out as Texas-Tyler is the best C-Bid team in the west. There is a real chance that Texas-Tyler, Pomona-Pitzer and Linfield can all miss their conference automatic bid. This is nothing short of choas.

    With Mary Washington, they really need to win out to improve their chances. Lynchburg losing the ODAC has probably taken away the remote chance that Wesley or Rhodes had in making the playoffs – and now Millsaps.

13. rc52b Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    Gentlemen, Rockford split with Edgewood today, just wondering what it would take for them to make the regional. Obviously winning the NAC is needed, but with remaining games against Il. Weselyn & Carthage, are they in a position that they need to run the table to get in or split with those 2 or any combination of wins that get their total to 30 with the NAC title ? Thanks for all you do.

14. dixon Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Of those teams looking for a pool B bid and in the regional rankings, Rockford is #4. The more they win, the better their chances are. Wins against Carthage and Illinois Wesleyan would be important.

    4) Rockford 17-5 .772

15. CoachCarGSOCollege Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    While playing in one of the toughest conferences in the country considered by most. Greensboro College is 24-9 in region better then most I think right now. We are 25-14 overall and noone gives us any thought. It seems like the teams that are always mentioned are the teams that have tradition. How can we ever get tradition if noone ever includes us in talks. Wins over NC Wesleyan, Methodist, Montclair St, Lynchburg,Bridgewater and blew a 9th inning lead over CNU. My question is if we play Rhodes next week in a 3 game set and win 3 and move to 27-9 in region we have a chance? How many teams are better then 24-9 or 27-9 in region I have no idea.

16. C2islegit Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Ralph,

    Being a fan and follower of the NEWMAC conference, I can’t help but wonder about the postseason fate of top seeded Babson. They went 11-1 in conference play, including a season-series sweep over Wheaton. They won the regular season title outright, and went 26-10 overall. They have 4 remaining games vs. RIC, USM, and a DH vs Tufts. I’m guessing their NCAA chances depends a lot upon these upcoming games, but I was wondering what you believe their chances are at an at-large bid. New England is a huge region, and they were currently ranked 8th as of the last release. They are ranked 3rd by the NEIBA, and I was wondering what the differences in these rankings are.

    Last year Babson was 25-14 and I believe they were one of the best teams left out by the commitee. Being a local, I’ve followed them this year and it pained me to see them go down this weekend, after such a great year so far. Because the New England region is the largest, will it send 8 teams to regionals in your opinion? Also, is there a chance New England may send 9 teams, with one going to elsewhere? I also follow EConn a lot and was wondering how they stand supposing they don’t win the Little East. Let me know what you think of all this. Thanks.

17. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Welcome c2!

    I believe that we discussed the fate of Babson last season on these blogs. I think that most of us thought that Babson was one of the seven remaining on the table when the last Pool C bid was given.

    I think that we have a little better handle on the playoffs this year, but we do not have access to the OWP or the OOWP.

    Babson is 25-9 in-region but has a chance to pick up 4 more in-region wins.

    I think that Babson must sweep the remaining four games. If Babson is not on this week’s Regional Rankings, then I don’t think that they get a Pool C bid. It looks like last year’s “magic” in-region winning percentage was about .750. Babson gets that with a 29-9!.

18. C2islegit Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Ralph,

    Thanks for the quick response. The .750 win percentage definitely is key to get. We did in fact discuss their fate last year because they certainly were a bubble team. What is the OWP or OOWP? I’m guessing it stands for Opposition Win Percentage, but I’m not sure. In last week’s rankings, are those simpy based on QWI? Or do other factors go into it? How are they different from, for example, the NEIBA rankings?

19. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 12:26 am

    Babson’s in-region percentage was .651 (23-14). I have posted the in-region winning percentages for the 2007 Pool C teams on the 2008 Pool C Message Board.

    The OWP and the OOWP are very well explained in the 2008 Handbook, Appendix B. The Handbook has the criteria listed. For your late-night reading pleasure…

    http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/baseball/2008/2008_d3_baseball_handbook.pdf

    

20. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 1:27 am

    Fan of ball, welcome to the blogs.

    I may have mis-understood you, but no one thinks that the CAC is a weak conference.

    UMW’s problem is that there are so many teams coming off the board from the South Region ahead of UMW.

    I have UMW’s in-region record at 17-7 with 2 critical games remaining. I would look for UMW in the Regional Rankings on Thursday. Millsaps did not win the SCAC tourney. A head-to-head win over both JHU and NCWC might do the trick. That makes you 19-7 with results over regionally ranked opponents helping you a great deal. (Corrections appreciated. It is way less than 200 miles to Gettysburg…in-region!)

    Until you are on the Regional Rankings, I have to say that you are a very remote bubble team. Good luck with JHU and NCWC!

21. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 1:29 am

    fan of ball…

    Bookmark the “handbook” that I gave to C2islegit.

    The Handbook knows all, says all, is all!

22. dixon Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 1:42 am

    From the South regional Rankings:

    4 Emory (24-10-1; 22-8-1)

    For Mary Washington, this is the competition as a B bid will be easier than a C bid. Wins over JHU and NCWC get you to 19-7 or .731 Emory is stuck at .726. If it was just a numbers game and they took the higher in region winning percentage – Mary Washington would trump Emory.

23. C2islegit Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 2:12 am

    Thanks for the feedback Ralph,

    I checked the OWP and OOWP in the handbook. I have a question as far as in-region win percentage. I question why it is this number that is regarded so highly. I mean sure, a team can post a .775 win percentage in-region and give them a great shot at a Pool C bid because they are significantly higher than a team with, let’s say, a .730 win percentage. However, it is easy to bank a lot of wins vs. teams that aren’t very good, as opposed to playing regional power houses out of conference.

    What happened to the QOWI that was used last year? I haven’t heard much talk about that on the blogs, so I was wondering if that still is used by the committee. Let me know. Thanks

24. fanofball Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 2:29 am

    Ralph & Dixon,

    Thanks a lot, you guys have been awesome with the amount of information you’re giving myself and the other posters.

    I wasn’t even aware that UMW might be eligible for a pool B bid. My last post may have been confusing but UMW has TWO games vs NC Wes and one vs Johns Hopkins left. My question is.. is Johns Hopkins considered an in-region game? If yes, UMW (currently 17-7 in region) would have to be 20-7 (.740) after those 3 games and not 19-8 (.703) in order to beat Emory’s .726 winning percentage correct?

25. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Johns Hopkins is in-region, because the campus is within the 200-mile radius of UMW.

    The committee looks at several “Primary Criteria” in the Regional Rankings. (See Handbook.) But, having a better in-region won-loss record is one thing in your favor.

    Read the Handbook!

    The OWP and OOWP replaced the QOWI, 1001 degrees of precision versus 16, IMHO, but not the cure-all that some fans had hoped. That tool is to allow the committee to see where the strong conferences are.

    There are were great discussions on the OWP/OOWP on the basketball boards, especially the women’s hoops boards. The OWP/OOWP do not help geographically isolated areas such as Texas in women’s Hoops.

26. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    C2, the not-very-good team, that is a very average team that built up a great record on very poor teams, gives you a poor OOWP, except in a very closed and small system like the geographic isolation that Howard Payne TX Women had in basketball. HPU Women went 33-0 this season, but only had an OWP of .536 and an OOWP of .512.

    http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/

    Please scroll down to the Women’s (Hoops) Regional Rankings for February 27th.

    The UAA schools that can sample from all over the nation, and the NESCAC schools that have numerous options in less than a 3 hour drive, can construct schedules than optimize the OWP and OOWP.

27. infuball51 Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Hello everyone! I love all the chat. I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the New York region. I feel that is the region that is most left out in the discussion. I feel it is a lot stronger this year than last year, especially with the rise of the University of Rochester team. They just recently took 3 out of 4 from RPI and clinched the Liberty League Crown. I think they are a team to watch in the future and keey an eye on.

28. dixon Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Right you are Ralph. This is the reason when they look at Pool C bids, they try to spread them around the regions (see Ralph’s comment on April 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm). We never want to go back to the time when there were only 3 Pool C bids.

29. C2islegit Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Ralph,

    Before I start to do some serious calculations by figuring out OWP’s and OOWP’s, the handbook wasn’t clear on if you calculate using ALL games, or just IN-REGION games. From what I read I think it’s all games, not just in region, but I wasn’t positive. Thanks.

    infuball51,

    I personally think the New York Region is not very strong. There aren’t a lot of conferences or teams, and I actually think it’s somewhat ridiculous that a state has it’s own regional tournament. Other than Cortland St, Ithaca, and RPI, who seem to dominate the region, there is little competition from what I can see. In fact, in the past, when a New England team is sent there, they either win it (EConn, a couple years back) or make it very far (Trinity, last year). However, those top 3 dogs in New York are great programs.

30. C2islegit Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Also, one more thing Ralph,

    As I look at through the handbook, I didn’t find anything stating that winning a conference regular season title, or conference record, being used as criteria by the committee. However, one would think these are important facts to look at, because in, for example, the NCAA division I basketball tournament, the committee is much more likely to put in a team that finished in first place in the conference regular season, as opposed to a team who did not win their regular season conference title. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

31. sbuPitch Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Dixon, Ralph-

    I am an assistant at Catholic. We are at 23-13-1 with the Landmark Tournament still ahead of us. We have wins over Mary Washington, Randolph-Macon, Shenandoah, Bridgewater, Gettysburg, and a split with Wesley.

    We still have a game with Villa Julie and are about to schedule one more with JHU for 5/7. Where would stand if we find a way to win out? You’ve got to be kidding me if Mary Wash’s profile would be better.

    We haven’t had the luxury of whipping up on Galluadet, York, and St. Mary’s this year. I’m not saying our conference is great, but USMMA is better than those 3 and Drew is better than Galluadet

32. d3baseballfan2 Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Ralph — quick question about Pool B. The handbook speaks to six criteria, does the committe use any priority, like in-region winning % vs. OWP/OOWP? Besides Juniata (your April 24 post) do you see any other Pool B teams that did not make the NCAA Regional Rankings?

33. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    In division III, winning the conference regular season title has no impact on Pool C.

    Unfortunately the OWP and the OOWP are done on in-region games (by the four definitions, e.g. Conference games, one of the 8 evaluation regions, one fo the 4 administrative regions, or the 200-mile radius rule).

    I agree with Jim about the New York Region…the Top 3 are strong, but to say that the Top 4 (Rochester) makes the region stronger just bears no weight.

    I promise… this summer I want to get the records of the conferences in the D-3 World Series since pools started in 2000 and then maybe the entire playoffs since Pools.

    If we want to talk about strong regions, then we look at the West, Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic Regions (with two teams winning the title in the last 8 years).

34. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Linfield has just loss to George Fox, 4-0.

    The second game starts at 5 PM PDT.

    Winner of Game 2 takes the NWC Crown and the Pool A Bid!

35. dixon Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    From the broadcast, Linfield was not sharp at all. I think George fox wanted these games more. We will see how, Linfield reacts when their backs are against the wall.

    The SCIAC is intereesting. Redlands wins three at Claremont-M-S and they win the SCIAC as they have the tiebreaker over LaVerne. Pomona needs to sweep LaVerne and hope for a Redlands loss. LaVerne still has a game suspended against Cal Lutheran. Although the Kingsmen are out of the playoff senerio, they can still play the role of spoiler if Redlands let la Verne in the playoff picture.

    The question I wonder if Linfield and Pomona-Pitzer are strong enough Pool C teams having now lost three games apiece this last weekend.

36. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    I do not believe that the committee uses the “last quarter of the season” in its deliberations.

    I think that the problem of the losses for PP and Linfield is that it knocks down the in-region record for those teams.

    In the NWC we see two close teams. George Fox beat West Region foe McMurry 2 games to one and lost to CSU-East Bay 2 games to one. Linfield went to CSU-East Bay, 2 games to one. That makes me think that the NWC is not quite as strong as they have been, this season.

    On the other hand, CSU-East Bay is 17-10 in the West Region. CSU-East Bay has four losses to Chapman, but they have beaten Linfield 2 of 3, GFU 2 of 3, Menlo 4 of 4, Whittier 2 of 3, Willamette 2 of 3, LaVerne 2 of 3, CLU 2 of 2, and CMS 0-1.

    I think that CSU-East Bay has made a very strong case for Pool B. They play Maryville MO, Wash StL and Greenville this weekend. Those are all in-region games.

37. C2islegit Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Thanks for getting back to me Ralph,

    Do you have any idea which of the primary criteria is weighed the most by the committee when evaluating teams? I looked at the handbook and it says in random order what the primary criteria are, but I was wondering if somehow you knew what they used as the most important. Are these committee members coaches?

38. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    The committee members are listed in the Handbook. I have never heard an official or person in a position of authority to say that one primary criterion was weighted more heavily than another. They use all to get a “big picture” of the “playing field”, (to mix a couple of metaphors).

    The committee members are appointed by the NCAA to be representative of all stakeholders in the playoffs, e.g. coaches/ administrators, colleges/conferences, independents/conferences, with rotating terms.

    I am one to believe that the members on the committee try to do the most professional job that they can.

39. dixon Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Having been on the back room part of making decisions, it is nearly always difficult to make some decisions. I agree that the committee does the best possible job.

    One thing to keep in mind is that all schools had the opportunity to make the playoffs. The rules are essentially known well in advance of the decision day (11 May this year) and a team should know what is needed to make the playoffs.

    The majority of teams mentioned are those sitting on a bubble. I dont recall any one from Salisbury asking if they will get into the playoffs. Although they are not guarenteed a spot, they have every expectation of being invited.

40. Major Texan Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Where does it fit in the criteria used if a D3 team plays a D! team and wins? Does that merely go to strength of schedule? Seems to me it should have a legitimate role other than the overall win/loss column.
    Thanks…

41. dixon Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Back to the handbook….

    “The primary criteria emphasize regional competition……If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).”

    Not related but an interesting snippet from the baseball handbook:

    Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the women’s soccer committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III in-region opponents. Coaches’ polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used as a selection criterion by the women’s soccer committee for selection purposes.

42. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Major Texan, actually no. Playing non-D-III schools does not promote the division. Every game not played versus a D-III team is one less game played “in D-III”. The Presidents have very specifically worked out the criteria to support the philosophy, including the regional empahsis and spirit of D-III Athletics across the entire spectrum of inter-collegiate athletics.

    http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/baseball/2008/2008_d3_baseball_handbook.pdf

    “If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed.”

    The hardest things for new fans in D-III to comprehend is that D-III is “so ‘not D-I’ “! D-III is about amateur inter-collegiate athletics, not “semi-pro” sports by kids trying to get an education if they are serious.

43. Ralph Turner Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    “Not related but an interesting snippet from the baseball handbook:

    Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the women’s soccer committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III in-region opponents. Coaches’ polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used as a selection criterion by the women’s soccer committee for selection purposes.”

    How come we D-III schools get all of the administrative interns that went to D-I schools? LOL

44. C2islegit Says:
    April 30th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    What is all this talk about the Women’s Soccer committee, and what does it have to do with baseball?

45. dixon Says:
    April 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    You have to pardon us. Both Ralph and I realize that they cut and pasted a section from the Women’s soccer handbook into the baseball handbook and did not edit the soccer reference out. Ralph had a good natured dig at the quality of an education at a D-I school.

46. nelfox Says:
    May 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    SbuPitch…Villa JULIE has already annihilated CUA 25-8 AND defeated them again 10 -5 …the fifth place team in the CAC conference …UMW finished 4-1 against them….and as far as CUA ‘S 7-6 victory over UMW ….every squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile….as a coach …I can’t believe you came on this site and identified yourself and announced such foolish stuff!!!!!!!!

47. sbuPitch Says:
    May 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Excuse me for having trying to find out what the committee is looking at, typical Mary Washington crap. Hold a lead at home one time….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.