Welcome to the newest edition of Commissioner's Corner. 

 I frequently get questions about how regional rankings are done and why they sometimes don't seem to match the recent performances of teams.  Although I cannot speak for any particular sport, I can shed some light on how the whole process works.

NATIONAL RANKINGS: While they are fun to talk about, they have no bearing whatsoever on post-season selection.  The major reason for this is that there is simply not enough nationwide play between teams from different regions in D-II.  In fact, sadly, there is not enough in-region non-conference play in most sports, and that usually hurts the GSC because other leagues have figured out that "if you can't beat 'em, then delete 'em (from your schedule)."  There simply is not enough data to do a valid national power rating for D-II, although there is an ongoing attempt to find a computer simulation that would do this.

The D-II situation is a lot different from that of D-I in this area.  Just compare the non-conference schedules of SEC teams to those of GSC teams, and you'll see what I mean.  GSC non-league games tend to be against teams from the same or adjoining states relative to the location of the GSC team, and this is largely true across D-II, give or take the Florida, Alaska and Hawaii schools.

 D-II REGIONAL RANKING SYSTEM: The D-II Regional Rankings begin with the eight separate Regional Advisory Committees (RAC) for each sport (four such committees in football because of its super-region concept necessitated by having fewer total teams).  Two representatives from each of the conferences in that region serve on the RAC.  They evaluate the total body of work of every team playing that sport in the region, using a set of criteria that may differ somewhat from sport to sport, but largely focused on strength of schedule, record against D-II teams, in-region record, record against teams with .500 or better records, head-to-head between pairs of teams and record against common opponents.  There are set criteria, but the RAC may weigh those criteria differently and also consider other factors such as where the games were played, what kind of travel a team endured, etc.

RACs may be comprised of any 3/4-time or higher employee of an institution from that region.  It would not be unsual for a RAC to be comprised of a commissioner, three coaches, an AD and an associate/assistant AD.  SIDs and other administrators frequently serve on RACs.  Each RAC is chaired by the member of the national committee for that sport who comes from that region.

 The thing that tends to confuse folks is the fact that these rankings consider the entire season, and not just what a team did last week.  So, for example, it is possible for a team that is 27-12 to be ranked higher than a team that is 32-7, especially if the 27-12 team has a stronger strength of schedule and has taken two out of three games played against the 32-7 squad.  Taking this step further, it is possible for a #4 team in the region to go 9-3 during the preceding week, the #5 team to go 4-0, and yet the rankings remain unchanged as they apply to those two teams.

How can that happen?  Again, it comes down to who you played and the total body of work for the entire season.  If the #4 team played the #1 team and lost all 3 games, it might not be penalized vis-a-vis the #5, especially if the #5 went 4-0 against a team with a .200 winning percentage.

HOW IMPORTANT IS HEAD-TO-HEAD?: The answer is not simple.  Obviously, it is important, but it is only part of the ntire body of work, and becomes less important if the games were played early in the aeason.  Take a sport like baseball: a team taht sweeps a doubleheader from another team in February gets credit for those wins, but by the time rankings are done in late-April, they may be very different teams thanks to injuries, players who develop, players who do not improve, etc.

CAN TEAMS BE PENALIZED FOR PLAYING THE SCHEDULE THEY ARE HANDED BY THEIR CONFERENCE? Again, not a simple answer.  Clearly, teams have to play the games their conference requires.  If the conference as a whole does not do well against non-conference, in-region opponents, this is going to hurt --- and that's why in-region, non-conference schedules are so important.  But even if a team schedules what history shows should be very strong non-conference opponents, there is no assurance that those teams will be strong in any given year.  There are plenty of examples of this every year, when teams suffer injuries and illnesses, or even academic or ther losses that turn a Regional Finalist in 2009 into a mediocre team a year later.  Should Team "A" be penalized if that happens?  Unfortunately, because the system measures results and not what might have been, the answer is "yes."

WHEN IS A "ROAD" GAME NOT REALLY A ROAD GAME? In some sports, "neutral site" games are treated the same as road games.  In others, there is no difference between a "road" game that is at a neutral site 10 miles away, versus a road game that is a 14-hour bus ride to a very hostile envirnoment.  Is that reallky fair?  Obviously not, and again that's where the RAC comes in, providing advice to the Regional Chair to take to National Committee.

IS IT FAIR THAT SOME TEAMS NEVER SEEM TO GO ON THE ROAD, WHILE OTHERS PLAY MORE THAN HALF OF THEIR GAMES ON THE ROAD?  Clearly, that's an issue, and it is very serious in the South Region, where the Florida schools sometimes choose to stay home and play all of their non-league games at home.  A classic case ocurred at this year's South Region Basketball Regional, where at least one team had not left its homoe state the entire regular season and parlayed that into an outstanding record that earned it an NCAA bid.

WHY DOESN'T THE NCAA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? Its not that easy to correct because its hard to force schools to travel.  Let's say the NCAA put in a mandatory travel rule.  A school in south Georgia could drive four hours and play schools in Florida, but a school in western Arkansas would have to fly to make that same trip.  In an era of serious economic challenges, there is an understandable reluctance to implement such a rule --- but the issue of fundamental fairness cries out for one.

WHAT ABOUT SCHOOLS THAT PLAY ALMOST THEIR ENTIRE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF GAMES AGAINST CONFERENCE OPPONENTS?  Again, totally unfair, but the NCAA is reluctant to interfere with Conference schedules, especially because of the automatic bid structure in so many sports.  However, this lack of in-region, non-conference mandatory play has created a real monster: statistically, weaker leagues that have very little success against in-region non-conference foes can manipulate the system by only playing in-league.  Take a 12-team league and do a statistical analysis: odds are that either two or three teams will have terrific records, seven or eight will be mediocre and two or three will be very poor.  If they play no one else, the top teams' strengths of schedules will be close to .500 and their records against D-II teams, in-region teams and road records will be very high, ensuring more representation than they really deserve.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RAC MAKES ITS RECOMMENDATION?  The recommendation goes to the national committee for that sport.  The National Committee reviews the submitted rankings, line by line, and has the right to make changes if it votes to change them.  The frequency of this "over-ruling" varies weekly, crosses all regions and has no clear-cut history.  A major cause for changes (over-ruling) is that the RAC did not appropriately apply the sport's criteria for rankings.

Hopefully, the above explanations are helpful in understanding the process.  In the near future, we'll take a look that things the NCAA might do differently in the rankings process.