jimdahl Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Despite some nice transparency last year, the smoke-filled room returns somewhat this year as the NCAA hasn't yet published the DII regional rankings criteria. I know some changes were made at the June meeting, so this will be wrong, but here's my guess of what they should look like based on last year's criteria: 1 North Dakota 2 Saginaw Valley St 3 South Dakota 4 Nebraska-Omaha 5 Grand Valley St 6 Michigan Tech Though I think I weighed it properly, UNO, with a loss, is an interesting case and most obviously likely to be wrong. Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 UND92,96, DII Regional Rankings I have been checking the site all day long...you beat me to the post! Quote
jimdahl Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 Well, it was nice of the NCAA to finally give us the regional rankings criteria: Regional Rankings Worksheet Guide Unfortunately, it still just leaves us scratching our heads wondering what an SOS is. It's starting to smell a little more like RPI, but it would be nice if they'd just come out and tell us. Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Well, it was nice of the NCAA to finally give us the regional rankings criteria: Regional Rankings Worksheet Guide Unfortunately, it still just leaves us scratching our heads wondering what an SOS is. It's starting to smell a little more like RPI, but it would be nice if they'd just come out and tell us. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim- Forgive me for copying a post from another forum, but this was posted on d2football.com by the PSAC commissioner and it contains some interesting information: With the first polls out, I thought I'd come out of hibernation and add to the clarity of the conversation. As a disclaimer, I am no longer on the national or regional FB committee - so I am not involved in the ranking process. But I wanted to pass along some insight. First, and this is a phrase we used often on the committee, "this is a selection process, not polling process!". In other words, the system is designed to make the selections at the end of the season after ALL the information/data was included. Had it been up to the national committee alone, you'd see far fewer weekly polls and much later in the season - its still early and all the information isn't in yet. I can tell you after serving on the national committee for 5 years, last year's selections were the least controversial that we've had in some time - so I think the system in place ultimately gets us where we need to be. Secondly, the selection criteria has changed from last year. ALL DII sports are undergoing a shift towards what is commonly referred to as the RPI system (Ratings Percentage Index). What was last year called the SSI (Strength of Schedule Index) is now called the QWI (Quality Win Index) - it looks VERY similar, but was slightly adjusted. A new piece of information has been included and will gain greater emphasis - the SOS (Strength of Schedule). This year the SOS is merely your opponents winning percentage excluding the result against your team. Next year the SOS will include 3 parts - your winning percentage, your opponents winning percentage and your opponents/opponents winning percentage....this will be called the RPI. There can be a 4th factor added to the RPI to take into account each sport's uniqueness. This is a move all sports in DII are moving to - its very commonly used right now in DI selection processes. Statistically, it is likely to be the best tool to measure schedule strength we've had. Its not really all about Data in the selection/ranking process - there is some subjectivity that comes into play - its just that the committees have to make a good case to go away from the objective data in the selection/ranking process and employ the subjective information - but it happens. But remember - its still early. Hope that helps those that are interested. Steve Murray PSAC Commissioner Quote
jimdahl Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 OK, great, no doubt RPI is better than the former SSI. My complaint really isn't the annual changes, it's that they're known in June but they don't tell us anything until the first rankings are released, and often don't tell us everything until November. Undaunted, I'll try to throw together a calculation based on the new system. SOS is trivial to calculate, no problem. However, I guess I have to wait until the 2005 championship handbook is released to find out the new QWI formula, so for now will just the old SSI. Quote
RD17 Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 OK, great, no doubt RPI is better than the former SSI. My complaint really isn't the annual changes, it's that they're known in June but they don't tell us anything until the first rankings are released, and often don't tell us everything until November. Undaunted, I'll try to throw together a calculation based on the new system. SOS is trivial to calculate, no problem. However, I guess I have to wait until the 2005 championship handbook is released to find out the new QWI formula, so for now will just the old SSI. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim- The QWI is the same thing as last year's SSI. I have no idea why they changed the name. All the point values remain unchanged from last year. From what I have been told, next year they are switching to a true RPI instead of the QWI and SOS, which as you noted, should be a huge improvement. All sports in Division II are going to be using RPI starting next year and its probably the fairest way to do it. Quote
jimdahl Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 The QWI is the same thing as last year's SSI. I have no idea why they changed the name. All the point values remain unchanged from last year. From what I have been told, next year they are switching to a true RPI instead of the QWI and SOS, which as you noted, should be a huge improvement. All sports in Division II are going to be using RPI starting next year and its probably the fairest way to do it. Thanks, I was just going by this statement (above):What was last year called the SSI (Strength of Schedule Index) is now called the QWI (Quality Win Index) - it looks VERY similar, but was slightly adjusted After this weekend's games, I'll try the new formula with last year's SSI in place of QWI and see how it looks. Thanks! Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 New regional rankings are out: Northwest 1 North Dakota (7-0) 2 Saginaw Valley State (6-0) 3 Grand Valley State (6-0) 4 South Dakota (7-0) 5 Minnesota Duluth (6-1) 6 Nebraska-Omaha (4-2) 7 St. Cloud State (6-1) 8 Northwood (6-1) 9 Michigan Tech (5-1) 10 Ashland (5-2) 11 Winona State (5-2) 12 Central Washington (4-2) Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 New regional rankings are out: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone else find it bizarre that UNO is ahead of SCSU? Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 Anyone else find it bizarre that UNO is ahead of SCSU? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, if it were based on anything other than strength of schedule, it would make very little sense. UNO is getting a lot of mileage out of their wins over NW Mo. State, Central Washington and Nebraska-Kearney early in the year. SCSU doesn't have wins of a similar quality yet. It seems strange not to penalize UNO more for their lop-sided loss at USD, but since margin of loss isn't a factor in the strength of schedule formula, it wasn't very costly. Quote
masterbom Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 How does UND come out ahead of Grand Valley in the region but in the national polls they are still behind them....Polls suck. Quote
jimdahl Posted October 13, 2005 Author Posted October 13, 2005 Anyone else find it bizarre that UNO is ahead of SCSU? This fits perfectly with the shift to RPI. By my calculations (still quite under construction), UNO's D2+ Opp% is .7972, while SCSU's D2+ opp% is .4286. Basically, UNO has played much, much tougher competition. As UND92,96 noted, margin of victory doesn't matter. Even under the old SSI system, UNO's SSI would be 10.5 to SCSU's 9.5. While the losses to USD and Duluth are 8 points, wins over UNK and NW Mo were 14 and 13! SCSU's near-perfect schedule is a bunch of 10 and 11 point wins over weaker opponents. Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 How does UND come out ahead of Grand Valley in the region but in the national polls they are still behind them....Polls suck. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Polls are generally meaningless...the regional polls are important in that they determine those going to the playoffs. I will take UND as #1 in the regional poll over any other.... ...I take that back. I would prefer that UND be the unanimous #1 in next years pre-season polls!!! Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 Next week's poll should really be interesting considering 3 of the top 5 teams lost today. UND will almost certainly remain 1, and Grand Valley will move to 2, but after those two it's anyone's guess. Quote
SiouxMeNow Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 PLUS for UND will be West Chester, Winona, and Central Washington ALSO won today...just adds to our SSI... Quote
SiouxMeNow Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 OOOHH!! Also St. Cloud which UND has also smoked...we've got a great couple weeks ahead leading to the showdown in Vermillion (which even a LOSS might not cost UND the top spot - but I'm getting ahead of myself...) Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 Updated Regional rankings: 10/17/2005 1 North Dakota (8-0) 2 Grand Valley State (7-0) 3 Saginaw Valley State (6-1) 4 St. Cloud State (7-1) 5 Minnesota Duluth (6-2) 6 Northwood (7-1) 7 South Dakota (7-1) 8 Nebraska-Omaha (5-2) 9 Winona State (6-2) 10 Central Washington (5-2) 11 Michigan Tech (5-2) 12 Ashland (6-2) UND remains on top... GVSU and SVSU switch positions... SCSU moves from 6 to 4... UMD remains at 5... USD moves down to 7 from 4... Northwood replaces UNO at 6... UMD definitely benefited from losing to a top-ranked team versus USD. UNO and USD need a win against UND to climb back into the top 6...thoughts? Quote
The Sicatoka Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 Don't forget "earned access": The NSIC is in the top ten so an NSIC team (Winona right now) gets one of the six regional bids. (#6 Northwood is in jeopardy.) The next question: Does Central Washington count for that four-team far west conference? They're also top ten regionally. Is UM-Duluth at #5 in jeopardy because of that? Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 Don't forget "earned access": The NSIC is in the top ten so an NSIC team (Winona right now) gets one of the six regional bids. (#6 Northwood is in jeopardy.) The next question: Does Central Washington count for that four-team far west conference? They're also top ten regionally. Is UM-Duluth at #5 in jeopardy because of that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Central Washington would have to get into the top 6 to get in. The GNAC doesn't quality as a conference for earned access purposes. Quote
SiouxMeNow Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Central Washington would have to get into the top 6 to get in. The GNAC doesn't quality as a conference for earned access purposes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BUT if they keep winning it only helps us!! Quote
The Sicatoka Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 The GNAC doesn't quality as a conference for earned access purposes. That's what I needed to know. Thanks. The message remains: Stay out of #6 or a #9 or 10 NSIC team will get your slot. Quote
Bulldog Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this: What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life? Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions: If: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98% Quote
petey23 Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Uhmm, can you repeat the part where you said the stuff about the things? Quote
UND92,96 Posted October 24, 2005 Posted October 24, 2005 New regional rankings: Northwest 1. North Dakota (9-0) 2. Grand Valley State (8-0) 3. Saginaw Valley State (7-1) 4. South Dakota (8-1) 5. Nebraska-Omaha (6-2) 6. Northwood (7-2) 7. St. Cloud State (7-2) 8. Ashland (7-2) 9. Winona State (7-2) 10. Central Washington (6-2) 11. Minnesota Duluth (6-3) 12. Michigan Tech (6-2) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.