Below is where the Median Order Rank by the Experts stands as of 4:00 PM today when the AVCA D3 Poll was published. Not sure how more than 6,300 points come about by 30 coaches each having 210 to offer on their ballot but maybe I’ll leave that alone for another day! Unless my memory is sputtering, I believe BW is the biggest mover of the last 3 years by the coaches -11 ranked spots over a single week. Very rare indeed, because theirs tends to correct itself slower than a typical computer algorithm does, especially so early in the campaign. It’s good to see it happen when it’s warranted – And it certainly was warranted! Congrats to Coach Mars’ squad on a great weekend of play to set the stage for its supreme test this week – Playing the #18 on Thursday, the #6 on Friday and then embarking on a Saturday back-to-back daily double against the #2 & the #8 host on the list below. A trek maybe more formidable than you’d see the National Finalists play on their way to a championship in late April, the only difference being they are guaranteed to play again and again, even should they come up short in any of the first three.
If Stevens were to not win the MAC Championship this April and the ranked order of teams be as they are above, then 5 of the best 7 in America would be earning an at-large bid, per this week’s MORE being the proxy for a yet to be reported NPI. Such an event ought to render the NPI impotent because any mathematical system; good, bad, or ugly should be able to indicate the top 5% of teams in a closed system, regardless. The order seen above puts Carthage and Wentworth, two teams more likely than others in the CCIW & GNAC to win their conference, right on the front edge of the bubble. The best bubble position because should Steven’s win the MAC as expected, either would be most likely to still earn an invite to the dance if not winning their conference, Wentworth more at risk if both didn’t come away with tournament titles. The supposed winners of the UVC, CVC, MAC, CCIW, and GNAC being among the top 9 as seen above would force the NPI to essentially choose one team from the remainder of the bubble, those ranked #10 thru #15. Perhaps, Hobart as suggested above in the #10 spot. Some might even posit the bubble reaches all the way to #17. If this is true, I’d expect the NPI to choose one of the 8 teams among those with the best overall win/loss record. It might be a just choice, or it might not, particularly in the eyes of the others listed there whose losses were to stronger opponents. I believe the NPI won’t know the difference beyond these teams’ win percentages the way you or I might think we would in a practical sense. One thing for sure is that no matter which it would choose, the NPI for MVB probably won’t have been put in a position to come under heavy scrutiny like in other sports. I suppose this is a positive consequence driven by MVB being the only D3 Sport I know which has a ratio as high as 2.8 Auto’s to 1 At-Large. As long as conferences continue to be formed having 8 or less teams among them, I don’t see this drastically changing any time soon. i.e. The closer to 2 to 1 a ratio is, the more at-large bids the NPI designates from a range of teams for which there exists more uncertainty. The higher it is away from 2.0, the less the NPI is taxed to perform admirably. (From a post in November I wrote, ” … the NPI isn’t intended to differentiate teams in the middle of the landscape, nor should it likely offer up a real head scratcher as its 4th or 5th at-large bid more than once every 5 years or so. However, I think it is more probable than not the 4th and 5th at-large will have better win rates than others on the bubble not to get in.” Many years working with valuation systems leads me to believe natural variability will expose the NPI in some small ways before that “Head Scratcher” forces a reckoning. This often happens with first generation math models intended to perform such tasks.
In the same way most coaches do some advanced scouting of their coming opponents, being ready to implement response strategies to conditions they may meet during the contest, I like to prepare myself for thinking about how varying factors might twist or turn leverage the NPI has on the system, not that I have any control over it. Having been a DAD-FAN of a bubble team the last 3 years, once among the first two out, once among the last two in, and once as the first one out had it not won its tournament, I have experienced it all. Being someone who undoubtedly will write about it when the time comes, the dry run commentary above should prepare me to have already considered most “ins and outs.” Besides, it’s fun to think about!
I will keep the Venn Diagram of this year’s match scores coming at the end of the TWM posts so that comparisons to the previous two seasons can continue to be made. There has been some conjecture for closer matches being related to either more depth of teams and programs or related to a paradigm shift in out-of-conference schedule making this year. There may come a time soon when a look at this year’s win matrix might be able to offer some context on that subject, in addition to it classifying the “UNO” upsets written about earlier this month. That plus the variability of the values across the T100 metrics might certainly shed some light on the truth, if the propensity for closer matches continues through February and March as is seen now.