Regional Rankings

[Moorhead123]

Re: Regional Rankings

Records vs Regionally Ranked Teams:

1. NW Mo: 6-0
2. Washburn: 1-5
3. Northern: 3-3
4. SCSU: 6-2
5. MoSo: 3-3
6. Southern Nazarene: 2-1
7. Mankato: 3-4
8. Lincoln: 2-2
9. Wayne: 1-3
10. Southern Arkansas: 0-1

Others-
UMD: 5-2
USF: 2-3
Augustana: 4-3
Moorhead: 2-4

Interesting stats, but not really sure what they mean...Moorhead and umd had 4 games against arguably the top two teams in nsic (northern and scsu) where Augie and USF only played two games against those teams.

[NSU4LIFE]

Re: Regional Rankings

Interesting stats, but not really sure what they mean...Moorhead and umd had 4 games against arguably the top two teams in nsic (northern and scsu) where Augie and USF only played two games against those teams.

If you play an MIAA team or a GAC team in non-conference play he is showing how teams also did against those in the rankings...

[NSU4LIFE]

Re: Regional Rankings

Records vs Regionally Ranked Teams:

1. NW Mo: 6-0
2. Washburn: 1-5
3. Northern: 3-3
4. SCSU: 6-2
5. MoSo: 3-3
6. Southern Nazarene: 2-1
7. Mankato: 3-4
8. Lincoln: 2-2
9. Wayne: 1-3
10. Southern Arkansas: 0-1

Others-
UMD: 5-2
USF: 2-3
Augustana: 4-3
Moorhead: 2-4

Washburn has a little bit tougher of a schedule left than Southern so, though anything can happen, I'd expect them to be surpassed by Southern. For NSU and St. Cloud it may come down to who goes further in conference play. Again, anything can happen but just going off how I see the rest of the regular season probably playing out. Good info here to see how they match up with eachother.

My only bold prediction is that someone not listed in the top ten gets into the regional.

[MisterWizard]

Re: Regional Rankings

I can't buy that the NSIC is better or deeper than the MIAA. I'm not going to thump my chest either that the MIAA is better than he NSIC.

We are similar in size (16 vs 14 teams).

The MIAA easily holds its own when looking at strength of shedules and highly ranked teams in the Massey ratings.

The MIAA did a little better in non-conference games and head to heads this year vs the NSIC.

Missouri Southern went 4-1 vs the NSIC this year, including a win in Mankato. One of their wins was over Upper Iowa, who appears to be the weakest team in either league.

By the way, like it or not but many of the above points could be made by the GAC too, simply based on things like Massey, PI, and non conference results.

I hope the 8th team in is truly an indepth look at that second GAC team, fourth MIAA team and fourth NSIC team.

But it's probably a surprise tourney winner.

[Augieholic]

Re: Regional Rankings

Interesting stats, but not really sure what they mean...Moorhead and umd had 4 games against arguably the top two teams in nsic (northern and scsu) where Augie and USF only played two games against those teams.

Record vs Regionally Ranked teams is, or used to be, part of the selection criteria. When you have two teams with similar resumes who didnt play each other it can be a helpful data point to know how they played vs the best teams in D2.

Those records include games vs teams from other Regions, i.e. SCSU vs Point Loma, Northern vs Queens, NW vs Ferris, UMD vs Northern Michigan, etc.

[NWHoops]

Re: Regional Rankings

I can't buy that the NSIC is better or deeper than the MIAA. I'm not going to thump my chest either that the MIAA is better than he NSIC.

We are similar in size (16 vs 14 teams).

The MIAA easily holds its own when looking at strength of shedules and highly ranked teams in the Massey ratings.

The MIAA did a little better in non-conference games and head to heads this year vs the NSIC.

Missouri Southern went 4-1 vs the NSIC this year, including a win in Mankato. One of their wins was over Upper Iowa, who appears to be the weakest team in either league.

By the way, like it or not but many of the above points could be made by the GAC too, simply based on things like Massey, PI, and non conference results.

I hope the 8th team in is truly an indepth look at that second GAC team, fourth MIAA team and fourth NSIC team.

But it's probably a surprise tourney winner.

I agree on comparing conferences. I think they are both down but they are comparable. MIAA has a much superior non conference record and has 10 teams in the top 50 of SOS (NW sits just outside top 50 at 51 but doesn't have the benefit of playing themselves to boost the SOS). For comparison, the NSIC has 3 and gac has 0.

[MisterWizard]

Re: Regional Rankings

Was fun to look back at the beginning of the WAYYYYYYYY TOO EARLY regional rankings thread from December 10 and see 8 out of these 10 teams listed in this first official regional ranking. Pitt State and Sioux Falls were the exceptions.

Maybe it wasn't WAY TOO EARLY after all.

[Otis Day]

Re: Regional Rankings

Was fun to look back at the beginning of the WAYYYYYYYY TOO EARLY regional rankings thread from December 10 and see 8 out of these 10 teams listed in this first official regional ranking. Pitt State and Sioux Falls were the exceptions.

Maybe it wasn't WAY TOO EARLY after all.

it will be interesting to see how the Coo plays with expectations and pressure. I've been plenty disappointed by Cougar basketball in the past so I can't say I'm very optimistic on how they'll handle it.

Dug up this line from my preseason post back in October. Nailed it.

That being said, 2 big opportunities this weekend to pick up some resume wins and get into the discussion. Then see if Evans and Geubert can put the team on their back even more and make a tourney run. Excited to watch it play it out. Yet, I'm already prepared to see the Coo on the 9/10 line at best in a few weeks. Maybe snag a win or two and some losses will happen to get the hopes up, then nada. The BSU, WSU, and Minot losses are looming and really could've used a win over NSU.

[mosoman]

Re: Regional Rankings

Looking at the RPI that the NCAA posts for the region (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/ex...=35&division=2 ) Northwest is 1, Washburn is 2, MSSU is 3, Northern is 4, Southern Naz is 5 and SCSU is 6...I'm guessing they're giving a whole lot of credit to the H2H with SCSU and MSSU, but really can't explain why the huge dip from 3 to 5. It does, however, speak volumes on how the committee ranks the GAC as a conference.

[MisterWizard]

Re: Regional Rankings

First game of year: SCSU beats us. Our new big man scored 28 in only 20 minutes due to foul trouble. Sounds like I'm making excuses. Credit to the Huskies for the win.

Since then, we've lost 4 games and they've lost 7. Our Performance Indicator is better than theirs.

I would've liked to see us ranked ahead of them. Surely the very first game of the year is not as much of an indication as more recent results. Which by the way, would also mean St Cloud should be ahead of Northern - they just beat the Wolves in Aberdeen a week or so ago.

Seems kind of inconsistent, with Northern State being the benefactor.

[86Catillac]

Re: Regional Rankings

First game of year: SCSU beats us. Our new big man scored 28 in only 20 minutes due to foul trouble. Sounds like I'm making excuses. Credit to the Huskies for the win.

Since then, we've lost 4 games and they've lost 7. Our Performance Indicator is better than theirs.

I would've liked to see us ranked ahead of them. Surely the very first game of the year is not as much of an indication as more recent results. Which by the way, would also mean St Cloud should be ahead of Northern - they just beat the Wolves in Aberdeen a week or so ago.

Seems kind of inconsistent, with Northern State being the benefactor.

[Augieholic]

Re: Regional Rankings

Since then, we've lost 4 games and they've lost 7. Our Performance Indicator is better than theirs.

Per the link from mosoman: MoSo has a Performance Indicator of 14.652 while St Cloud's is 14.880. That combined with St Cloud's higher SOS (.540 vs .524) AND the head to head win are probably why the Huskies are ahead of the Lions.

[86Catillac]

Re: Regional Rankings

Per the link from mosoman: MoSo has a Performance Indicator of 14.652 while St Cloud's is 14.880. That combined with St Cloud's higher SOS (.540 vs .524) AND the head to head win are probably why the Huskies are ahead of the Lions.

Facts are stubborn things.

[MisterWizard]

Re: Regional Rankings

Per the link from mosoman: MoSo has a Performance Indicator of 14.652 while St Cloud's is 14.880. That combined with St Cloud's higher SOS (.540 vs .524) AND the head to head win are probably why the Huskies are ahead of the Lions.

Now you see, that makes sense!

Funny thing, St Cloud is also benefiting from playing us (PI-wise) because we are in the .750 to 1.000 winning percentage range. Conversely, our opponent in that game (SCSU) is only in the .500 to .749 range, which is 3 points lower. Over 30 games, that makes a .1 difference (along with our win this week over Pitt, would pretty much close the gap). And that's all fine as we are 4/5 with them.

[mosoman]

Re: Regional Rankings

Per the link from mosoman: MoSo has a Performance Indicator of 14.652 while St Cloud's is 14.880. That combined with St Cloud's higher SOS (.540 vs .524) AND the head to head win are probably why the Huskies are ahead of the Lions.

And I was referring to RPI, where MSSU's (.584) is higher than SCSU's (.569). I'm not really in the know of what is the difference between the two or not. I just know that RPI is the last column and they rank all of those and not the others. Not sure if one means more to the committee than the other if at all.