No announcement yet.



Support The Site!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    Here were the regional rankings entering the final week of the season (tourney week).

    1) Indy 22-5
    2) Ferris 23-5
    3) UMSL 19-5
    4) GVSU 20-6
    5) Truman 20-8
    6) Bellarmine 19-7
    7) Southern Indiana 20-7
    8) Michigan Tech 18-8

    Outside looking in were Drury and Findlay.

    Here were the results from conference tourney week.

    1) Indy - beat SW Baptist, lost to #5 Truman (23-6)
    2) Ferris - lost to NMU (23-6)
    3) UMSL - Beat Drury, beat #7 S. Indiana, lost to #5 Truman (21-6)
    4) GVSU - beat Ashland, lost to #8 MTU (21-7)
    5) Truman - Beat Rockhurst, beat #1 Indy beat #3 UMSL (23-8),
    6) Bellarmine - lost to #7 S. Indiana (20-7)
    7) Southern Indiana - beat #6 Bellarmine, lost to #3 UMSL (21-8)
    8) Michigan Tech - beat SVSU, beat #4 GVSU, beat #4 Northwood (21-8)
    Walsh - unranked, won GMAC tourney.

    Regional seeds:
    1) Indy
    2) Truman
    3) UMSL
    4) MTU
    5) Bellarmine
    6) S. Indiana
    7) Ferris
    8) Walsh

    I don't have a problem with the top 4 seeds, or Walsh being the 8th seed, as they were required to be in the tourney as the GMAC champ.

    My concern is with dropping Ferris from 2 to 7, despite a bad loss, and both Southern Indiana and Bellarmine jumping GVSU, despite advancing no farther in their tourney than GVSU did.

    What gave S. Indiana the better position than GVSU come selection Sunday?

    GVSU and Bellarmine had nearly identical records, and the same number of losses. S. Indiana had one additional loss than either of the other two
    GVSU did not play Bellarmine or S. Indiana. Bellarmine and S. Indiana played 3 times, with Bellarmine winning two of the three.

    Bellarmine had some very nice wins during the season, including a win over Indy (as well as a loss to Indy). GVSU lost to Indy on the road, the same place Bellarmine lost to Indy.

    What about teams avoiding bad losses.

    Bellarmine had a bad loss to William Jewell on the road, as well as another bad loss to Illinois-Springfield. (both teams with losing records).
    GVSU's worst loss was their only loss to a team with a losing record, Northern Michigan.

    Southern Indiana, in my opinion, was more deserving of a higher seed, and being in the tourney than Bellarmine. S. Indiana did lose two of three to Bellarmine, but they also lost ZERO games to conference opponents who were under .500, while Bellarmine lost two such games.

    One thing that bothers me about S. Indiana getting in is that they avoided playing a single GLIAC team all season. Bellarmine at least played host to two GLIAC teams (SVSU and Northwood), while GVSU played two GLVC teams.

    The issue is the NCAA is supposed to evaluate teams without regard to the conference they are in, but the GLVC always seems to get a lot more leeway from the NCAA than the GLIAC ever does.

    When I look at other regions, it appears little changed between the regional rankings and the seedings.

    Atlantic Region - #4 and #5 switched places, and #8 dropped out in favor of the CIAA champ.
    Central Region - #5 and #6 switched places, Henderson State jumped to #7 after winning the GAC, dropping then #7 UM-Duluth out (
    East Region - #7 and #8 swapped places
    Midwest - #2 dropped to #7, #5 jumps to #2, #4 falls out, #6 and #7 each move up one place, #8 jumps to #4, and Walsh jumps in with an automatic).
    South - #2 and #3 swap places, #8 jumps to #4 (won conference), #6 drops out, #4 and #5 drop one place. #8 Miles earns automatic bid from SIAC.
    South Atlantic - #2 and #3 swap places, #5 drops to #6, #7 jumps to #5, #7 entered from #10 (won conference).
    South Central - #4 Black Hills State drops out, #8 jumps to #4, #7 jumps to #5, #5 drops to #6 and #10 jumps to #8 (automatic bid).
    West - #9 jumped #8 by winning conference tourney.

    Two regions had significant movement, with #4 ranked teams dropping out. Only in the Mid-west was a team ranked in the top 2 of the final regional rankings dropped to the last team to make the field as an "at-large" from the region. No other top two team dropped more than the #3 spot. Two conferences, the GLVC and the LSC had significant jumps at the mercy of another conference.

    One other thing to consider is the NCAA's own evaluation tool.

    This is a detailed ranking of the teams within the region, using a metric system.

    Here are the rankings, according to the NCAA's own metric, the RPI going into the conference tourney.

    1) Uindy
    2) UMSL
    3) S. Indiana
    4) Truman
    5) Bellarmine
    6) Ferris
    7) GVSU
    8) MTU
    9) Drury
    Walsh was #16.

    When you look at the performance indicator, GVSU is third in the region behind Indy and Ferris.

    When you look at SOS, entering the conference tourney, They are very close as GVSU is .004 behind S. Indiana and Bellarmine. This very small variation is due to each conference playing 20 conference games.

    The question is does GVSU beating the #11 performance indicator team in the region, then losing to the #7 performance indicator team make them worthy of dropping behind a team in the regional rankings who lost to the #6 team in their only game of their tourney?

  • #2
    It is hard to disagree with anything you say. With regard to Ferris falling to seven, seems like a far drop. It makes absolutely no difference, however. The only thing that matters this year is making the regional and who was going to host. Seeding is inconsequential because I don't think there is a lick of difference between these teams, just look at everybody's ranked records. Generally my concern, if I'm not the #1 seed, is avoiding the #1 team (because of the home court advantage) as long as possible. This year I would have preferred to be 6 or 7, than 4 or 5.

    Looking at the last week of regional rankings, there is no logic to GVSU falling out. That is different than saying they were definitively one of the 5 best at large teams.

    It is also difficult to get around the fact that Davenport (BU Coach) and Hall (USI A.D.) were on the committee.


    • #3
      the link you provided to NET doesn't work...can you provide a better link or instructions and getting to link.


      • #4
        Is there not some way the NCAA could assemble these committees without coaches from the very teams that are being assessed being on them? That's lunacy. And it explains a lot of the ridiculous results over the years, frankly.