Quote from: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!!

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.

Except when they beat IWU on their home floor in the Elite 8 game in 2009 to make the Final 4.

Quote from: jaybird44 on February 21, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
I truly did not believe that was an intentional foul by Samantha Anderson.  She was trying to gather a rebound and didn't have an additional intent to clear out space with her elbows at the expense of anyone else who happens to be in the way.

It's a tough call to make...officials have to determine what contact comes from the natural flow of the game, vs. the contact that comes from a player intending to put an extra "effort" into a play or situation to gain an unfair advantage.  I don't think Anderson put in that extra effort or intent.

Does anyone know the official rule on the elbow? I have heard that the intentional foul was part of a change in the rules this year that have said that all elbow thrown fouls are intentional regardless of intent and whether contact is made and that is why the officials made the call after conferring. I do not know the official rule in the book and am guessing someone who posts here probably will. That being said, if that is the rule then the officiating crew should likely have called the same think on Wash U a couple plays later when Coach Simon was saying that the Wash U player did the same action. Both players had their elbows up at head level and rotated around to clear space.

Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 16, 2011, 06:40:54 AM

Quote from: deiscanton on February 16, 2011, 04:01:52 AM

Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 15, 2011, 09:22:38 PM
I've watched Washington U play a few times via video broadcast, there is no doubt in my mind they are a good team.  A top 16 for sure.  I know they play a tough non-conference schedule.  There has to be a point where quality wins takes more of front seat over a quality losses.

Like I said they played a tough schedule, but they haven't won but one of the games.  It took overtime to beat a Rochester a team that has 5 losses (some of those losses not good ones.)  Washington U ranked 6th in a very tough region, could be dropped out.  I think they might be on the bubble at this point.  AQ's are going to hurt Wash U's chances of getting into the tournament.  I would be shocked to see them in, if the season ended right now.  #9 team in the country not getting in....

Bring the teams forward that have good wins.  I don't want to just pick on Wash U.  I think Babson's and Thomas More's schedule has been pretty weak.  Treat them all like a Boise St type of team.   (Get rewarded for beating good teams and not for having perfect records.)  That speaks for even the team i pull for...

UW-Stevens Point is my favorite to win it all at this point.

Rochester's five losses:  @ Medaille (#1 East), @Wash U, @ NYU, @ Chicago, Chicago.   I disagree that any one of those five losses were bad ones.   It may be a little bit easier to win at the Coles Center now that Stefano Trompeo is coaching the Violets rather than Janice Quinn, but winning at NYU is still very difficult when it comes time for UAA season-- especially when a typical Friday night crowd at Coles is over 1,000 fans (Friday nights in the UAA are typically "Tear it Up!" nights at NYU-- in addition to the Saturday game vs Brandeis when it is held on NYU Senior Day) and the NYU pep band (which plays the fight song "Old New York University" to rev up the crowd and has Link's theme from "the Legend of Zelda" in their repertoire), cheerleaders, dance team, and mascot are at full strength.  The Brandeis women have only won at Coles Center on the NYU campus twice lifetime.   I've been known to sometimes get a little bit of a chill when I hear the NYU alma mater ("the Palisades") being played before the national anthem at Coles.

What I meant about bad losses were the

87-59 L at Chicago
82-69 L at NYU

Yeah you can argue they were on the road in a tough conference, and I get that.  
I just really doubt that Wash U will get in unless they get the AQ

Do you think they will still be ranked after this weeks regional rankings?  There are 3 conferences not in the top 6 that still get AQ's

It may be true that Wash U doesn't get in but I think that is a black eye on the D3 process if so.

Yes, they are 1-3 vs regionally ranked teams, but look at the losses.
5 point loss to IWU on a neutral court in which they were leading until a late 3 game IWU the lead, 2 point loss to Hope on a neutral court where the game was back and forth the entire time and tied in the late stages, 2 point loss to Chicago on the road in a tightly contested game against conference travel partners (usually a rivalry game), and a 10 point loss (late first half run was the difference) to Rochester on the road in a facility that has been extremely tough to win at for the Bears lately.

For perspective, the Bears have not won at Rochester any of the last three years but were still good enough to make the National Championship.

If a team with 4 losses with all being to highly ranked regional teams get excluded from the tournament in favor of teams with 6 or more losses with some being to non-ranked opponents, then there is a definite flaw in the system and all teams should start playing cupcake schedules just to get into the tournament. If D3 is to continue moving forward as a competitive organization, it has to start rewarding teams that play tough schedules and take on challenging games. They have won the games they are supposed to win and played tough in the games that were tough competitions (no blowouts).

For example, UW-Whitewater has a loss at UW-River Falls who is 15-8 and UW-LaCrosse has losses at UW-Eau Claire who is 14-10. Not saying these teams should not get in as well, but they both have 5 loses (2 more than Wash U) in region and at least one was to a team that they should not have lost to. Wisconsin Lutheran has 3 regional losses (same as Wash U) but all to teams not regionally ranked (Millikin 15-8, Concordia (Wis) 16-8, and Concordia (Ill) 9-15). To me, those are all bad losses and they have a weaker SOS. They have as many wins vs regionally ranked teams as Wash U but mostly because they have only played one team. Not saying they shouldn't get in either, but not seeing based on the numbers why Wash U should be ranked below these teams.

The way this is working is the opposite of how it should. Yes, you should need to win against top teams, but looking at other tournament selection, losing to low teams is what usually gets teams left out and losing to top teams usually doesn't hurt you as much. D3 works the opposite, the loses to bad teams are a much lower factor in selection than losses to good teams. Look at the D1 men and see how many times they will say, "This team has some good wins, but they have 2 loses to low RPI teams and that is why they got left out" In D3, the message is "This team has 2 bad losses, but doesn't have as many losses against top teams as this other team with no bad losses so that's why they are getting in." 

Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on February 07, 2011, 10:24:34 AM

Quote from: gadk on February 06, 2011, 10:52:19 PM
#11   333   UW-Whitewater   16-5   LOST to UW-La Crosse, 66-73; LOST at UW-River Falls, 69-73

can whitewater stay in the top 25? no other team in the top 25 has 5 losses.

It's hard to know...If it was Ill Wesleyan or Wash U, they'd still be in the Top 10. Yes, they've both lost to ranked teams, but the voters seem to have a pretty unconditional love for those two squads.

Wash U has losses to Hope and IWU on neutral courts (both ranked in the top 5 at the time they played them) and Chicago on the road which is a tough environment to play in. If Wash U or IWU lost 3 games in their last 4, they would probably fall equally far. A couple years back when Wash U opened the season with losses in 3 of their first 4 games, they dropped out of the polls completely. Not really a fair statement to say they are getting favorable treatment without anything to really back that statement up.

As a curiosity, did the Diva Belt originate with Millikin winning the championship that year? If not, it is completely feasible that a team could hold the belt and not be the National Champion. For instance, if a belt holder lost a game late in the regular season or playoffs to a team that didn't make the post season. That team could hold the belt through the next season meaning the national champions would never have held the belt. If that is the case, then the true holder of the Diva Belt would only be able to be known if it starts in 1982 with Elizabethtown's victory and follows the path from there.

Wasn't part of the original reason for selecting a Final Four site in advance rather than choosing a host school from the four participants to assure that the tournament would be fairer and make sure that one team could not host throughout as was occuring frequently? If so, seems to contradict the original purpose to allow one team to host. I agree with a lot of the other suggestions to make it a rule that if you host the Final Four atleast one weekend has to be on the road. Even the supposedly easier first and second rounds would add a little bit of fairness to the mix. A great team that is deserving of winning playing at home in the sectionals and Final Four should be able to win the first and second round on the road. I have no doubt IWU would have still won their first and second round games this year if they had been on the road, but atleast it would add a little more sense of fairness back into the mix.

Not that which team hosts matters to me, but just to stoke the fire so the discussion can continue, it seems interesting to me the way it played out. Ultimately, it would seem geographically that the decision came down to the fact that UWSP is 100 miles closer to Bloomington than Hope. The assumption I would make is that Marymount would have to fly into most likely Chicago for Bloomington and either Chicago or Grand Rapids for Hope so that cost should be about the same and I would assume the cost of busing from Hope to IWU or IWU to Hope would be the same. Seems cost wise, geography shouldn't matter. Facility wise it should be close to a wash as both have great facilities. Hope would have the edge in attendance but not by much.

So ultimately the decision must have come down to seeding. This is where it gets fascinating. Hope is #1 in Great Lakes, IWU is #1 in Central. Hope is 24-0 in region vs IWU being 23-1. IWU, however, has the stronger SOS at .575 vs .535. Hope was 3-0 vs in region regionally ranked teams vs IWU being 5-1. If IWU didn't win on the primary criteria, I think Carthage is most likely the reason that Hope came in as the #2 seed with them being Hope's only loss and a likely secondary criteria difference. Kinda ironic that another CCIW team might have been what helped IWU to host. Either way, this sectional should be full of great basketball with 4 tough teams coming to Bloomington over the weekend.

Quote from: 80sshorts on March 07, 2010, 07:51:32 PM
And it would've been even cheaper to bus two teams to kenosha and fly in George Fox, apparently that never crossed the committee's mind...

I would be fairly certain that it did cross their mind but as earlier posts mention there are 4 criteria of which another major one is seeding. George Fox got eliminated based on the high cost despite being a higher seed but Wash U was above Carthage in the final regional rankings and since cost was probably not drastically different, the committee most likely decided it did not want to send both the teams to Carthage based on the seeding criteria. Would also suspect that "flying into Kenosha" means flying into Chicago and bussing to Kenosha which adds more cost over flying into St. Louis where the airport is less than 10 minutes from the site. The additional cost of the bus trip from Chicago might have made the costs much closer in comparison.

Thanks Ralph. I know margin of victory isn't a criterion, just mentioning it for comparison. Hadn't noticed the strength of schedule on the right bar. It does bring up how close the teams are in the primary criteria though. Wash U has the better SOS and OOWP while Carthage has a better OWP. And when you bring in the record verse common regional opponents, Wash U comes in at 4-1 vs. Carthage at 5-2. So they are just two very closely matched teams, and I would think the order could be reversed and still be just as justifiable. Wash U has the lead in 2 of the 5 criteria while Carthage has a lead in 1 with 2 being washes but the differences are so slight that it's almost a toss up in my opinion. No doubt they are two quality teams. My guess is that Carthage gets the edge cause they have victories over both IWU and Hope.

Anyone have some insight on how Carthage might come out ahead of Wash U in the regional rankings. They are a great team, and I know they beat IWU at Carthage, but they also lost to IWU at IWU by 28. Wash U lost to IWU at IWU as well but only by 5. They are 2-1 against Central Region regionally ranked opponents while Wash U is 1-1, and they are 4-1 against all regionally ranked opponents while Wash U is 3-2. I am not sure how the Quality of Wins Index would shake out. What jumps out to me though is how they fared against common opponents. As mentioned, Wash U played IWU much closer at IWU than Carthage did, Wash U beat Elmhurst at Elmhurst while Carthage lost to Elmhurst at home, Wash U beat Chicago by a good margin while Carthage only won by 2, and their matchups verse North Park and Augustana appear to basically be washes.

Does anyone have any stats on the Quality of Wins portion of the rankings. I am guessing the higher ranking is mostly based on the 4-1 vs 3-2 rating verse regionally ranked opponents. Figure the two are extremely close and it could be shaken out either way without it really being a wrong ranking but just looking for some insight on what the biggest differentiating factor between the two is when they have a lot of similarities in their records and schedules.

So, not suprising that UAA got 4 bids, but am suprised that the UAA teams are all hosting with Brandeis ending up getting a host. Definitely a good team, but just suprising to me that a team with 7 loss ended up getting to host. Gives the UAA a great chance to get 4 teams to the Sweet 16. That would be great for the conference. Would have liked to see Chicago get in though.

Bowdoin wins over Amherst meaning one more Pool C lock is taken.

Updating pabegg's predictions based on yesterdays results to remove those already winning Pool As and those who have already lost:

Locks eliminated already (6)

Messiah
UW-Whitewater
Rochester
Greensboro
Tufts
DePauw

Locks playing conference final (3)

Amherst (F Sun)
Muhlenberg (F Sun)
Oglethorpe (F Sun)

This means there are at least 6 and potentially 9 Pool C bids here.

Probables eliminated already (7)

Brandeis
New York University
Eastern Connecticut
York (Pa.)
St. Norbert
Washington and Jefferson
UW-Eau Claire

Probables playing conference final as Pool A underdog (1)

Bowdoin (F Sun)

There are at least 7 Pool C bids here and possibly 8.

In Contention eliminated already (7)

Chicago
Western Connecticut
Keene State
Marymount
Mississippi College
Texas-Dallas
Kean

There are at least 7 Pool C bids here.

This list accounts for 24 teams of which 20 are already eliminated. Those in tier 3 (in contention) should start cheering for Amherst, Muhlenberg, and Oglethorpe to win today to make sure their are a couple spots for them to fight over. Should be noted that Bowdoin plays Amherst in that final so one of the two would lose so best case, their would be 14 spots taken by the locks and probables leaving 6 open spots for the in contention tier.

Quote from: mark_reichert on January 08, 2009, 08:55:10 PM
Just wanted to report that my impression is that WashU is going to have its least successful year in a long while.  Of course, I also thought so when they started 1-3 and ended up in the championship game.

Their defense is still tight under most circumstances, but it can be broken through easily enough by a well practiced offense.  I'm not the student of basketball that most are here, but I do know my dismay when the opposing team gets hot by continually threading the ball to somebody who can reliably toss in a layup.

But as usual, the least reliable part of the Bears game is the offense.  Too little discipline, not enough of those threaded passes to somebody who'll actually get the ball in.

Anyway, what makes this season the one where they fall is that so many of the other UAA teams have done so well in non-conference games.  The Bears may actually lose more than two home games and over half their road games.

This just goes to show that early season prognostication doesn't always turn out to be true. Wash U ends up winning the UAA and nearly goes undefeated in doing so (3 point loss to Rochester at Rochester being the only setback).

Think a major reason it was so hard to judge this year's Wash U team early on is cause there is not one star. Whereas other teams in the conference clearly knew their go to players early in the year, Wash U has had to try and discover that on a team loaded with lots of talented folks. Seems from the stats that what they discovered was to just figure it out game to game. Some days its Janice Evans, some days its Jaime McFarlin, some days its Zoe Unruh, and the list goes on and on. Think once they discovered that, it really fixed the offensive inconsistencies and made them very tough to plan for. That they fared so well in the conference this year is saying a lot to with the quality of the conference overall. It's really too bad teams like Chicago might not get in as they could easily do some damage in the tournament. Even Carnagie was a tough competitor this year despite their record. There are no easy games in the UAA and Wash U's run this year has been fun to watch.

Some interesting notes on the stat front for Wash U is that defensively, since the Spokane trip, they have only surrendered more than 60 points twice in their last 18 games (very impressive). On the offensive side over the same stretch, they have only scored less than 60 points once (hard to lose with stats like that).

Wish them and everyone else in the conference the best of luck in the postseason and let's hope Chicago manages to get bid #5 for the conference.

With the amount of upsets yesterday in the conference tournaments, I would say Chicago's chances are very slim. I believe the other day that 22 teams that were ranked in the last regional rankings were vying for the 20 Pool C spots and with the amount of upsets (Tufts, York, Washington and Jefferson, Eastern Connecticut, DePauw, and Greensboro) the list of teams competing just grew to the point of making Chicago's chances pretty slim. One thing helping them is that St. Norbert lost which might give them a chance to sneak to 6 in the last unpublished rankings but find it hard to come up with a scenario where they get in with yesterday's loss.