Performance Indicators 2016-17

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

10	San Francisco State	West	CCAA	17-3	85.00%	16.05	49.07%	51.52%
13	Chico State	West	CCAA	16-4	80.00%	15.90	53.52%	51.37%
16	California Baptist	West	PWC	20-2	90.91%	15.82	47.96%	50.47%
17	UC San Diego	West	CCAA	16-5	76.19%	15.76	54.59%	51.00%
19	Hawai'i Pacific	West	PWC	16-1	94.12%	15.41	42.10%	50.97%
21	Sonoma State	West	CCAA	15-5	75.00%	15.40	54.59%	50.79%
37	Western Washington	West	GNAC	16-5	76.19%	14.76	50.40%	50.31%
47	Dixie State	West	PWC	16-5	76.19%	14.38	47.44%	51.57%
62	Alaska Anchorage	West	GNAC	13-5	72.22%	13.78	49.23%	50.08%
71	Cal State San Marcos	West	CCAA	10-7	58.82%	13.59	55.90%	51.51%
90	Concordia (Calif.)	West	PWC	12-8	60.00%	13.20	54.42%	49.60%
94	Cal State San Bernardino	West	CCAA	10-8	55.56%	13.11	52.17%	51.71%
95	Chaminade	West	PWC	14-6	70.00%	13.10	43.82%	50.04%
116	Western Oregon	West	GNAC	12-9	57.14%	12.57	52.86%	50.46%
123	Cal Poly Pomona	West	CCAA	8-10	44.44%	12.33	57.60%	50.86%
132	Montana State Billings	West	GNAC	12-8	60.00%	12.15	44.93%	50.79%
134	Central Washington	West	GNAC	10-8	55.56%	12.11	50.21%	50.21%
157	Northwest Nazarene	West	GNAC	8-9	47.06%	11.65	52.34%	50.17%
159	Azusa Pacific	West	PWC	10-13	43.48%	11.61	56.40%	49.62%
160	Cal State LA	West	CCAA	10-11	47.62%	11.57	49.75%	50.58%
160	Point Loma	West	PWC	12-9	57.14%	11.57	45.42%	50.03%
162	Cal State Dominguez Hills	West	CCAA	9-9	50.00%	11.50	47.00%	50.81%
165	Cal State East Bay	West	CCAA	11-11	50.00%	11.32	47.07%	50.75%
170	Saint Martin's	West	GNAC	9-10	47.37%	11.21	49.42%	50.83%
179	Seattle Pacific	West	GNAC	10-12	45.45%	11.05	50.78%	49.89%
215	Humboldt State	West	CCAA	7-11	38.89%	10.22	46.05%	50.73%
217	Alaska	West	GNAC	9-12	42.86%	10.14	47.83%	50.30%
228	Concordia (Ore.)	West	GNAC	6-12	33.33%	9.83	52.19%	50.70%
231	Dominican (Calif.)	West	PWC	7-14	33.33%	9.76	49.65%	48.66%
251	Stanislaus State	West	CCAA	6-16	27.27%	9.23	50.72%	50.40%
262	Academy of Art	West	PWC	5-14	26.32%	8.74	47.42%	49.54%
264	Hawai'i Hilo	West	PWC	5-13	27.78%	8.72	52.33%	49.09%
282	BYU-Hawaii	West	PWC	4-14	22.22%	8.06	51.53%	48.60%
284	Fresno Pacific	West	PWC	4-17	19.05%	8.05	52.11%	47.86%
288	Notre Dame de Namur	West	PWC	3-16	15.79%	7.84	52.56%	48.38%
289	Holy Names	West	PWC	5-16	23.81%	7.81	42.70%	48.98%
291	Cal State Monterey Bay	West	CCAA	3-18	14.29%	7.76	49.69%	50.55%
297	Simon Fraser	West	GNAC	2-20	9.09%	7.32	56.36%	49.22%

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Chico will tumble.

Apparently not too badly. Both Sonoma and SF are 75% or higher and Chico was on the road, so that is the absolute best-case scenario for Chico to take a loss, making these games worth 11 points. On top of this, Sonoma was one of Chico's past opponents. Their win put them at the 75% bracket, which means that the previous game they played suddenly became worth 3 more points.

Additionally, one other game happened this week that gave Chico a boost - San Diego got another win, which put them above the 75% threshold as well. That's another 3 points - on two previous games.

So effectively, both games this week were worth 15.5 points when you factor in the other movement. They had a 15.94 before this week, so you do the math, and we see it didn't have much effect on them.
Chico now sits in a very shaky spot as previous opponents San Diego (x2), Sonoma (x2), and Dominguez (x1) are all one loss away from dropping below 75%.

[Rob_AK]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

The performance indicator is a crude approximation of the relative strength of each team. It is probably only accurate to within 3-5 places in the regional ranking. Why it is used to seed the regional if the other criteria do not produce a clear winner is beyond me, as the other criteria are probably more accurate as a whole. It is just an attempt to keep the committee from exercising any judgment on the body of work of each team. As CCAA-Fanatic points out - one win or loss by an opponent (not involving your team) can have a significant on its ranking. I noticed earlier in the year that UAA's PI changed about 1 point and they didn't even play a game. This system also doesn't give any qualitative credit to the wins/losses, so a 30 point blowout is the same as a 1 point win in OT. If we are going to use a system based criteria, I would actually prefer Dave Wilson's at talismanred.com. It would be far more accurate. But I think it takes margin of victory into account and do we want to encourage teams to run up the score on lesser opponents - probably not. I frankly do not like any formulaic criteria. If it was other than a few AD's from west region schools making the decision, such criteria would not be necessary. But that is a whole other issue.

[GNACHOOPS]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Perhaps a better approach would require a minimum of two teams from each west region conference, i.e. CCAA, GNAC, and PCW, and then use the top two PI average of remaining teams to fill the eight teams for the West Regional. I believe the current automatic berth of one team per conference in the West Region should be improved to allow a better representation of all three conferences.

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Perhaps a better approach would require a minimum of two teams from each west region conference, i.e. CCAA, GNAC, and PCW, and then use the top two PI average of remaining teams to fill the eight teams for the West Regional. I believe the current automatic berth of one team per conference in the West Region should be improved to allow a better representation of all three conferences.

I like the 1-team bid, puts a lot of meaning on the regular season and conference tourney, unlike D-1, which was talking about 11 teams from the ACC getting in. The GNAC isn't powerful this year and might only deserve one bid, I'm not sure. Reward conferences for having great years. The GNAC might sneak 2 in, but the CCAA and PacWest have better teams at the top, IMO. No need to hand out consolation berths for teams that don't deserve it.

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I like the 1-team bid, puts a lot of meaning on the regular season and conference tourney, unlike D-1, which was talking about 11 teams from the ACC getting in. The GNAC isn't powerful this year and might only deserve one bid, I'm not sure. Reward conferences for having great years. The GNAC might sneak 2 in, but the CCAA and PacWest have better teams at the top, IMO. No need to hand out consolation berths for teams that don't deserve it.

+1
It's a huge problem in the Midwest with three autobids...Somebody deserving always gets left out...And one of the conferences only has one team with a record over .500

[GNACHOOPS]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I like the argument of rewarding teams for their schedule; unfortunate for the teams in Alaska and Hawaii due to high cost of travel. Certainly the one bid per conference is a much better arrangement for the CONUS teams of the West Region!

[northernGNAChoopfan]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I like the conference tournaments with the auto-bid. It gave UAF a real shot at regionals last year when their record didn't quite get them in due to the CCAA upset conference winner, Humboldt. The CCAA runs their tourney different though and does not reward the top two teams by giving them buys in the first round and they let 8 teams in. I think they set the stage a little more for upsets in that they don't reward a great conference season quite as much. If I were queen, I'd make them change their tournament to match the GNAC and PacWest tourneys (I can't remember if Humboldt was 6, 7, or 8)... Yeah, maybe I'm still a little sore on that one, but whatever.

I also think the region should work together so that everyone gets quality in region con-con games in November. If the region got together and all of the #1 & #2 teams from the previous season had a 6 team tournament in one of those schools/central location (rotating year to year). All the #3 & #4 teams get together and play a 6 team tourney the same weekend and so on and so forth. Then we wouldn't be wondering how Simon Fraser gets games in Vegas with WWU as well as a game @ CBU too. It would probably benefit just about everyone, reward winning programs from the previous year by getting the best competition and help some schools in the conference who struggle with getting good games to get locked into at least one weekend of good resume-building games. It would also be good for fans too, cause fans could pick up a lot of good games in one weekend @ one location. Just a thought. (An example of that 1 & 2 tourney this year could have been Chico, UCSD, WOU, UAF, CBU, & APU with teams only getting games against other conferences... When was the last time UAF got the chance to play any of those CCAA & PacWest teams? Yeah, they woulda gotten spanked this season, but it would have been good learning and resume "quality type losses"). Okay. Off my soapbox!

[Rob_AK]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

If there is only one bid for the conference then the regular season means very little - just a seed in the conference tourney. You could win the regular season, play a team that gets hot, and be sitting at home. I would have some heartburn with that. In 2011-12, IIRC, SPU was the only team to get to the NCAA from the GNAC. Although they won both the regular season and conference tourney, I thought that was kind of BS. The PacWest has a lot of weak teams - the bottom half of that league has been pretty dismal this year. I am not overly impressed by the gaudy records of CBU and HPU (HPU played mostly cupcakes in the pre-conference and basically all of CBU's games were at home). And with HPU losing at Azusa last night, their record is a little less gaudy. With the exception of SFU, in the GNAC this year you have to be ready to play twice a week, every week. The same can probably be said of the CCAA this year. The west region conferences are very competitive and I think judging one conference as significantly better than any other would be questionable almost every year. It should be a very rare occasion that each conference does not get in at least two teams. My pet peeve is the automatic berth for the conference tourney winner - I think it should knock out the lowest team that would have otherwise got in from that conference and not a team that had no opportunity to decide its fate. That happened about 4 years ago when MSUB won the GNAC tourney and the GNAC got 4 instead of three teams into the tourney. I thought that was rather unfair, but both the Pac West and the CCAA got in two teams so it didn't affect the second best team in each league at least. The problem is that the selection process is almost entirely formulaic and their is little or no discretion to correct unfairness.

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

If there is only one bid for the conference then the regular season means very little - just a seed in the conference tourney. You could win the regular season, play a team that gets hot, and be sitting at home. I would have some heartburn with that. In 2011-12, IIRC, SPU was the only team to get to the NCAA from the GNAC. Although they won both the regular season and conference tourney, I thought that was kind of BS. The PacWest has a lot of weak teams - the bottom half of that league has been pretty dismal this year. I am not overly impressed by the gaudy records of CBU and HPU (HPU played mostly cupcakes in the pre-conference and basically all of CBU's games were at home). And with HPU losing at Azusa last night, their record is a little less gaudy. With the exception of SFU, in the GNAC this year you have to be ready to play twice a week, every week. The same can probably be said of the CCAA this year. The west region conferences are very competitive and I think judging one conference as significantly better than any other would be questionable almost every year. It should be a very rare occasion that each conference does not get in at least two teams. My pet peeve is the automatic berth for the conference tourney winner - I think it should knock out the lowest team that would have otherwise got in from that conference and not a team that had no opportunity to decide its fate. That happened about 4 years ago when MSUB won the GNAC tourney and the GNAC got 4 instead of three teams into the tourney. I thought that was rather unfair, but both the Pac West and the CCAA got in two teams so it didn't affect the second best team in each league at least. The problem is that the selection process is almost entirely formulaic and their is little or no discretion to correct unfairness.

It's 8 regions that get one bid each to the Elite 8, right?

Perhaps it should be 2-2-2 to the regions, then the next 2 highest seeds based on power rankings. Didn't SPU get in last year or the year before with a 4thor 5th place conference finish? I think how you finish in your conference is critical. Yeah, I'm not for creampuff non-league slates, but November was a long time ago, not sure how that should affect how things are going in March.

I also think the 3 conferences (as Northern said) could set up single-site non-conference tournaments. WOU does this with 4 teams. A trip to Alaska could have six or 8 teams and you knock off 3 or 4 non-conference games at a single site; have one in Hawaii, one in Washington, one in Oregon, one in SoCal, one in NorCal, for example, perhaps to tip-off the season. Or rotate it, one year in Hawaii, one year in Alaska; one year in SoCal, one in Norcal, whatever. Have every team in all 3 conferences play -- around 35/36 teams, I think -- and go from there. No NAIA's, no D3's, no obscure Christian colleges, just west coast D2. If someone complains that team X played a bad Holy Names team or something, tough break. They started the season with a clean slate in November, no one knew how that team would turn out.

[CCAA_Fanatic]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I like the conference tournaments with the auto-bid. It gave UAF a real shot at regionals last year when their record didn't quite get them in due to the CCAA upset conference winner, Humboldt. The CCAA runs their tourney different though and does not reward the top two teams by giving them buys in the first round and they let 8 teams in. I think they set the stage a little more for upsets in that they don't reward a great conference season quite as much. If I were queen, I'd make them change their tournament to match the GNAC and PacWest tourneys (I can't remember if Humboldt was 6, 7, or 8)... Yeah, maybe I'm still a little sore on that one, but whatever.

Humboldt was the 4 seed in the CCAA last year (18-8 going into the conference tournament). From what I heard from some coaches was that they didn't like the 1st round bye of the 6 team tournament because the team you were facing got to have a game in the venue and work out their jitters. Your team came in cold to a new arena they had never played in before. They felt it was kind of an advantage to the underdog. The current system you get a home game first. If you can't win at home, then that is on you! I can see it both ways...

[Rob_AK]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Although they already do it to a limited extent in the GNAC/CCAA/PacWest challenges, requiring teams to attend specific tournaments isn't going to happen. Each program has individual needs and budget requirements. The CA state teams in the CCAA have very limited budgets for travel, and the Alaska teams are going to have some serious budget issues going forward.

Maybe we should have a playin game(s) in the event that (1) there is a conference tourney winner(s) that would otherwise not have been selected, or (2) it is necessary to get a second team from a conference into the tourney. The committee would seed the regional including the playin games, with the playin games held at the home court of the higher seed. This would solve my issues with who gets in, and the seedings except for who hosts is largely a non-issue. But I doubt it would ever happen.

[CCAA_Fanatic]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

It's 8 regions that get one bid each to the Elite 8, right?

Perhaps it should be 2-2-2 to the regions, then the next 2 highest seeds based on power rankings. Didn't SPU get in last year or the year before with a 4thor 5th place conference finish? I think how you finish in your conference is critical. Yeah, I'm not for creampuff non-league slates, but November was a long time ago, not sure how that should affect how things are going in March.

I also think the 3 conferences (as Northern said) could set up single-site non-conference tournaments. WOU does this with 4 teams. A trip to Alaska could have six or 8 teams and you knock off 3 or 4 non-conference games at a single site; have one in Hawaii, one in Washington, one in Oregon, one in SoCal, one in NorCal, for example, perhaps to tip-off the season. Or rotate it, one year in Hawaii, one year in Alaska; one year in SoCal, one in Norcal, whatever. Have every team in all 3 conferences play -- around 35/36 teams, I think -- and go from there. No NAIA's, no D3's, no obscure Christian colleges, just west coast D2. If someone complains that team X played a bad Holy Names team or something, tough break. They started the season with a clean slate in November, no one knew how that team would turn out.

I believe that volleyball does something very similar to this. I doubt that basketball would ever do it because the big dogs (Chico, Humboldt, WWU, Cal Baptist, Seattle Pacific, etc.) play tons of home games because they make money on ticket sales. They won't give those games up without a fight! Would be a more even system.

That being said, if you are a coach that wants to get to the NCAA tournament, then you should schedule accordingly. If the athletic department wants their team to play in the post season, then they should put up the money to go play regional opponents or bring them in. If they don't do it, then their fans should complain to them about it.

[GNACHOOPS]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

What makes a big dog, A Big Dog? Athletic Department budget, home game attendance, ability to update/expand facilities, number of regional/national tournament titles; or perhaps the number of votes on the NCAA D2 West Region basketball committee?

[CCAA_Fanatic]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Basically teams that buy home games. I was only referencing attendance and profitability of their men's basketball program. Home games bring revenue to those schools (not sure about SPU, actually) because people watch.