okay, so I can put this thing to bed once and for all -

there was no personal attack made or intended.  I am truly sorry if someone took it that way.  It's nice to see everyone jump in and defend the person.  I was not talking about the person...it's the process.

His statement was "from what I heard of last night's webcast, Justin Wansley is a beast and this team is solid"

I hate to argue over semantics, but this sentence indicates that he is basing his opinion on Wansley and the team on portions ("from what I heard - implying he didn't hear the entire broadcast) of a game.  The fact that he referenced an "average performance" (based upon last year's stats - 18.5 and 10.1) indicated to me that he did not "know" of Wansley.  He made no reference of prior knowledge (reference to prior thoughts or comparison to earlier or prior year games).

My bottom line statement had nothing to do with the person - it "attacked" the process.  I said that this provided some empirical evidence that the poll was a "beauty contest". 

If all of you were attacking me because you're personally involved in the polling process and consider to be different than I stated, that's fine.  I offered a suggested alternative -- comment on that.

Is it a real "issue"?  No, it should be more about the basketball.  However, every team wants to be recognized for its accomplishments.  Are polls a big deal?  Normally I would say no.  Obviously, some disagree with me - including some of our esteemed Congressmen who want to bring the BCS polling process before Congress.  If it's worthy of discussion on the Senate or House floor, why not here?

Nonetheless, a Merry Christmas to each of you and your families.

I'm done here.

Coach C

I was not going for a "cheap score".  Your return comment is far more "personal" and, in this case inappropriate.  In the zealous effort to defend the current process, everyone missed the main point.  The process is flawed (and by the way, that's what I was "attacking", not the person). 

I don't disagree that most polls are flawed.  D-III followers are generally known for their creativity and uniqueness.  There is an effort to "do things differently" than the other divisions.  In this case, by following along with the others, the D-III process is even more flawed.  You're right - as a Philadelphia writer it's tough to see ODAC games.  How do you cast an accurate vote if you don't see the teams play?  You can say - "it's the same as every other poll".  Great, does that make it right?

I offered a suggestion - good or bad.  No comments on that though.  I meant nothing personal by the comment.  Can you say the same?

Glad to see that I could generate an emotional response.

Yes, I created a misleading statement - sensationalistic, unsupported journalism on my part and I apologize.  I should probably post a retraction on a different page in smaller print.

By the way, the announcers are pretty solid R-MC fans as I listened to them many times last year.

Wansley is a great kid, very quiet and unassuming and probably deserves more recognition than he gets.  The 19 point, 11 rebound performance is nice, but look at his averages from last year.  The kid averaged 18.5 and 10.1 so the performance against St. John Fisher is nothing but "average".

I also believe that there is a substantive difference between "knowing" and "being familiar with".  He may have seen the name, but I would bet he "knew" little about him.

However, I will retract my earlier statement.

okay, my final rant (for now) on the top 25 determination.

Read today's "Daily Dose" on the cover page of D-III hoops.  The discussion is about R-MC and where a "voter" ranked them on his ballot.  Prior to this past weekend's games, he barely had them on the ballot.  He had no idea who their first team pre-season All-American (Justin Wansley) was.  He gets his information listening to the webcast (with "homer" announcers) and concludes that "Wansley is a beast".

A better solution to the "top 25" poll is to rank the schools within a "region" as it would be applied by the tournament.  This way you would have 4 polls based upon geography.  I know that the geographic regions aren't exact, but you could be close and their would be relative merit to the rankings.  The fact of the matter is, you can be in the top 15 in the nation (per the poll) and not get a bid if you don't win the automatic bid and there are only 3 or 4 slots in the region.

Only a suggestion, but the empirical evidence above indicates exactly what I thought and stated previously - the top 25 poll is not much more than a beauty contest.

Wow!  So many replies and so much to discuss.  Thanks!

It's unfair of me to say that the winner of the tournament is not the champion.  I was just questioning the "national" element of the invitees.

I haven't gone back and looked at schedules, but I don't see many teams from the midwest (yes, geographically) migrating east for pre-season or holiday tournaments.  Did any of the WIAC teams come east or play significant games out of region?

The tournament selection criteria seem to punish both games out of region and losses to "ranked" opponents. 

As to being no better than the D-IA football (sorry Pat), they at least have more than one poll and of course a formalized BCS rating system ( .

It's no different in D-I hoops, there are only so many at-large bids.  However, record means less and I believe that strength of schedule is far more sophisticated and important.  It is why "lesser" conferences don't get the at-large bids.  However, I also agree that Georgetown and Houston were both better than 'Nova and NC St.  Yet, as they say, that is why they play the game.

Titan Q

I appreciate the information and mean no disrespect, but their size hasn't helped them dominate their early season opponents and not all of them have been against "ranked" opponents.

I understand the "quality" of midwest/mideast basketball.  I am an Augustana (IL) grad and had a high school teammate that started on the North Park teams from 1978 - 1980.  In fact, I am very familiar with the game that Augie lost to Wabash in the 1982 championship (as I recall, it was telecast live on ESPN back before bowling and poker became primary sports).

I had the opportunity to see Aurora and Illinois Wesleyan first hand in last year's opening tournament and have been back "home" and seen many games (I have a nephew who attends Hanover as well).

I am just saying that I have actually "seen" a lot of basketball.  I have yet to see a team who dominates night in and night out.  I don't believe that the top 5 teams in the WIAC would necessarily finish that way in the ODAC or even in the CAC.  There are other teams across the nation that can more than hold their own with those teams.

In many cases, it is just a different style of basketball. 

I am still not sure that I understand how the polls are voted upon.  What is the basis for "annointing" the WIAC the "stongest" conference in the nation?  Like I said, unless the teams play head to head or unless you are able to see all the teams play, what is the basis for your vote?  It just seems to me that bias and history will drive the votes as much as any actual performance.

Finally, I would challenge that we won't have a true "national" champion in Div III basketball until the nation's best teams are included in the tournament rather than the best teams in a collection of 8 regions.

It's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

More interesting, what happens to Lincoln after losing to R-MC?  And, as importantly, St. John Fisher wasn't impressive in winning.  What happens if they lose to R-MC tomorrow?

If nothing else, it's fun debate.

I don't know anything about the coaching situation at Lincoln, but I imagine you could tell by looking at their website.

Can anyone explain the Top 25 and UW-Oshkosh?  They are two last second baskets away from being 2-5 (they are actually now 4-3), yet they are ranked number 25 in the nation.  Who is promoting them?

UW-Steven Point and UW-Whitewater are both better in conference and in region yet they fall below them in the polls. 

Why is there such a midwest following?  I am not so sure that the basketball is all that much better in the midwest vs. the east coast.  I am just curious as to how much impact "local bias" has on the votes.

Matt

Guess what?  We know that it's always "all about the money"!

You're right, the kids in the program like to put themselves up against D-I competition.  The program benefits because of the $$$.  I guess that my position is a little bit personal.  I hate to lose, don't believe in "moral victories" and believe greatly in "momentum".  On that basis, I have a hard time supporting the D-I scheduling.

I would much rather see a regional game against someone from a purportedly "tough" conference within the region.  There are only so many "at-large" bids available and the strength of the conference weighs heavily in that decision.  Playing a D-I team does nothing to improve their position.  And, by the way, it does not specifically factor into the recruiting process.

Anyhow, the next few days should be interesting.  As I said, a big tourney down at R-MC this weekend (Sunday & Monday).  I think that Lincoln is for real and just doesn't have a history and we'll see how St. John's Fisher fits into that group.

It's hard to "evaluate" the performance of either St. Mary's or Catholic at Davidson.  It looks like St. Mary's struggled with them in both halves while CUA was able to play close to even in the 2nd half.

I guess that my rant will continue.  I see virtually no benefit - other than possible $$$ - of a D-III school playing a D-I school.  Most good D-III programs have at least 1 or 2 kids that could have played at the D-I level.  Maybe not as a "star", but certainly as a contributor.  However, the depth of the D-III program will never compete with a solid D-I program like Davidson. 

The unfortunate part is that I believe the subjective nature of the NCAA selection process - especially in D-III - is impacted by this decision.  When you look at the polls, there are votes cast based strictly upon overall record or prior/existing bias.  Generally, I don't really care about the polls.  However, they have influence over who gets to play in the post-season.  The unfortunate part is that unlike D-I, most of the voters have never seen the teams that they vote on play.  There is no television coverage.  Occasionally, there is a press release (sometimes it is even well written).  Most of the time, the voters make their selection based on a box score and historical knowledge and the bias builds over the year.

It will be interesting to see how the pollsters react to the tournament in Ashland next week.  R-MC is hosting a tournament with St. John Fishers and Lincoln.  Three teams in the current top 25 and at least 2 will add at least one loss.

Enough rambling.  Sorry for the rant, I shouldn't even post.  Bottom line is that the CAC is screwing itself by it's better teams going outside the conference and playing D-I opponents rather than taking on D-III teams from other conferences.  If the latter took place, there would at least be some form of empirical evidence from which to judge to the relative strength of the conference.

CUA showed "okay" against Davidson.  I am not sure that Davidson couldn't have blown them out by more if they had tried.  Sowden did show that he could play D-I ball if he chose to.  Not sure that anyone else on Catholic played up to that level.

It looked and sounded like CUA struggled with guard play.  Shooting was obviously a problem based upon the 4-25 first half.  It's hard for a 5'10'' guard to get their shot off against a more athletic, bigger kid.  The result is that they start hurrying the shot and get out of rhythm quickly.  It's just more of the reason that I don't like the game.

Well, they have a week to get through finals and then get ready for McDaniel - who looks to be a decent opponent.  Certainly no pushover going into the break.  If they can get the W next Monday, it would be a nice first way to complete this first "section" of the season.

It will be interesting to see if CUA can be more consistent getting the ball inside and letting their strong inside game set up the outside game.

Muchacho

I agree with you relative to Davidson - two Atlantic 10, a Big 12 and an ACC game on their schedule and they have won 3 out of 4.  Davidson is a good basketball program.  I'm not sure why they picked up two D-III schools.  Their RPI rating was high.  I believe that it was in the top 20 in the country.  I am sure that will fall after these two games.  Especially if they don't blow the two D-III schools out of the gym.

I watched R-MC play George Washington last year.  GW is a top 20 team.  They were going to play Wake Forest the following week.  They blew R-MC out of the gym.  It was something like 107-48.  Not sure what either team accomplished.

I am a little worried about Catholic and how they approach this game.  Davidson will pressure CUA full court and make them run.  CUA has some good shooters and if they can avoid turnovers, it could be a fun game.  CUA is also deep.  They don't lose much when they go to their next 5. 

I am going to listen to the game for awhile anyhow.  It is being broadcast via the web on teamline.com.  The link is below for tonight's game.

http://www.teamline.cc/sportpages.html?teamcode=1143&eventcode=0021

Not sure why it didn't post as a link, but this is the address anyhow.

Let's see how they do.  Go Cards!

Why is it that the NCAA is so focused on "regional" games as it relates to D-III.  They are purportedly trying to establish a "national" champion, but if a particular region has an abundance of strong teams it seems that the field is weakened due to the regional limitations.

I understand travel and the scholar-athlete.  What is the real issue - money or academics?  My bet is that it is the $$$ and that they hide behind the academic argument.

I will also bet that if they just admitted to the $$$ issue, the teams that needed the money to travel in the tournament would be able to raise it.

So how do we get it changed?

I noticed that both teams CUA beat early in the year are starting to win - Salve-Regina and U Mass - Dartmouth.  Salve-Regina is 6-2 and UMD is 4-3.  In total, CUA is 5-0 against teams with a combined record of 22-8 against opponents other than CUA.  Haverford is the only team with a losing record.

Does this matter when evaluating schedules?

d-mac

Thanks for the amended response.  I thought that maybe you really were biased against CUA.

As for remaining games, CUA has Davidson and McDaniel.

Sunny

I don't mean to be argumentative, but when you're dealing with a question of medical fact it's frustrating to listen to nonsensical rant.

For anyone to say that "age" doesn't make a difference, they are contradicting the "normal" physical development cycle.  If someone chose to use their college eligibility from ages 22-26 rather than 18-22 (the "norm"), that person would have a physical advantage.  Why do high schools limit the age of the participant to 19?

Don't try to compare out of shape alumni with "in-shape" students.  That's the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.  Compare in shape students with equivalently sized in shape 25 year old athletes and tell me who is stronger.