D III Women's Volleyball

A source for NCAA Division III women's volleyball info and opinion, with a focus on the Midwest and Central regions

Initial 2015 regional rankings released

As expected, Washington-St. Louis and UW-Whitewater are the top teams in the Central and Midwest regions, respectively, in the first regional rankings of the 2015 season.

Commentary, if any, to follow later this evening. However, my votes in the Central and Midwest regions were fairly similar to the respective committees.

UPDATE: Agree to disagree on Northwestern’s omission in the Central. I see what the Midwest committee did, and I don’t mind where we have divergent opinions on teams’ relative criteria.

The first rankings are reliant on everything but record vs. ranked opponents out of necessity. Curious to see how record vs. RR changes things, if at all, in the weeks to come.

Central Region
1. Washington-St. Louis
2. Wartburg
3. Gustavus Adolphus
4. Augsburg
5. Saint Benedict
6. Coe
7. Saint Mary’s (Minn.)
8. Bethel

Midwest Region
1. UW-Whitewater
2. Carthage
3. UW-Oshkosh
4. UW-Eau Claire
5. Illinois Wesleyan
6. UW-Stevens Point
7. Elmhurst
8. Chicago

The top four teams in other regions:
Great Lakes Region: 1. Calvin; 2. Wittenberg; 3. Hope; 4. Ohio Northern.
Mid-Atlantic Region: 1. Juniata; 2. Christopher Newport; 3. Eastern; 4. Mary Washington.
New England Region: 1. MIT; 2. Amherst; 3. Tufts; 4. Springfield.
New York Region: 1. Clarkson; 2. Stockton; 3. Union; 4. SUNY Brockport.
South Region: 1. Emory; 2. Randolph-Macon; 3. Hendrix; 4. Birmingham-Southern.
West Region: 1. Colorado College; 2. Cal Lutheran; 3. Southwestern; 4. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps.

-Ricky Nelson


Written by Ricky Nelson

October 22, 2015 at 2:23 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well they switched the top 2 teams in the west (CC and Cal Lu) just to ensure I wouldn’t get them all correct. It’s actually an interesting case study in the selection process.

    SOS – Cal Lu
    Win % – CC
    Last 25% – Even
    Head to Head – N/A
    Common D3 Opp. – Even
    Win % Ranked – CC

    (CC 2-1)

    Not sure they went through the formal process but by rule, CC should have been ranked ahead of Cal Lu. What gets interesting is if you then compare the #2 and #3 team (SU).

    SOS – Cal Lu
    Win % – SU
    Last 25% – SU
    Head to Head – N/A
    Common D3 Opp – Even/Cal Lu (both undefeated but Cal Lu has more wins)
    Win % Ranked – SU

    (SU 3-1 or 3-2)

    So, now if you go through the process, SU should be the #2 team! I’ve seen enough of both teams to know this shouldn’t be the case (eye test). But the eye test isn’t part of the equation.


    October 22, 2015 at 3:02 pm

  2. Very few teams have started the final 25% of their season yet. Also there is no public ranking from last week for the committees to look at when coming up with this week’s ranking. When the committees work at the same time, the west doesn’t know what the south is doing and vice versa. This may be as simple having to choose between 2 great teams so gun to your head do you take the .7 margin in Win % or the .12 difference in SOS?


    October 22, 2015 at 6:10 pm

  3. Glad Ricky posted his update as I was curious about how many of the 6 criteria the committee’s used the first week.

    So, in my write-up above, CC and Cal Lu would have been tied in the 5 criteria and it would have come down as the other poster asked, “do you take the .7 margin in Win % or the .12 difference in SOS”? I think both teams can pretty much beat the same level of teams. To me, it comes down to who did you lose to this season. Cal Lu tips the scale there for me. Having said that…doesn’t matter. Both are going to the NCAA tourny. I still think, strictly speaking, SU should have been ranked higher than Cal Lu based on the criteria. (Don’t get me wrong…I wouldn’t have done it, either.)

    In other news, not a fan of the 6 criteria. They can be manipulated. If your only goal is to make the Tourny (and you don’t have money to buy into the GSAC…yes, I’m talking to you Slugs) then you can sacrifice SOS to be better in (really) 3 other criteria.


    October 23, 2015 at 8:53 am

  4. I also prefer to see teams do more than the bare minimum to secure a bid. There are ways to avoid the fray as much as possible and still accomplish goals. Unless a program is content to be a regional contender, I don’t think that a stealth schedule helps much in the long run.
    Then again some programs don’t have the resources to play more than a stealth slate.
    It’s been brought up by committees before, but I’d like to see a separate component for nonconference schedule strength. It’s a catch-22 now for teams that would like to spread their wings. No matter how they schedule in noncon, their league always cancels out those SOS gains.
    The argument against pulling out noncon SOS from the remainder (and possibly adding like 10 other criteria) is that the rich will get richer. The best teams from the best leagues are already rewarded handsomely in the current system. No matter which criterion you add, the current powers are probably really, really good at that component, so you’re just creating a larger gap. Understandable, if a little defeatist and probably too accepting of current norms.
    It’s an interesting debate. As a surface response, six criteria just seem like too few.
    Being on the committees is a thankless task for the most part, but I think that the more encompassing that you can make the comparisons the better. It’s easy to argue that having six criteria is not as encompassing as it could be.
    If there are way more than six criteria and no one wants to be on the committees because it’s too hard and time-consuming, pay me and I’ll do the selections by myself. Heck, I’d even be willing to show my final rankings to everyone. And I’m not smart enough to become a megalomaniac.

    Ricky Nelson

    October 23, 2015 at 3:22 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: