MBB: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Gregory Sager]

I meant "poisoned", "strange", and "alien" only in the best possible way, of course.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I wonder if the people who vote even bother to read the boards. Of course, there's a lot of BS to wade through, but there are actual gems of information in there, if you bother to look.
[/quote]
Yep - I know many of us read the boards... but it is the "BS" that makes it hard to take much of the information seriously, sometimes. And of course there are some (OxyBob) who never saw an arguement that wasn't worth making and certainly quick to run from when challenged.

As for the "homers" out there... I was wondering how Goucher got all of those points this week!

For the record I didn't vote for IWU and I didn't vote for any SCIAC team this poll. Reason no SCIAC? Despite many "big" wins, those teams seem to have some "big" losses as well. Speaking of which, while OxyBob doesn't see it necessary to count non-D3 losses in his examples, most pollsters including myself take them into account. CMS - three losses total. Cal Lu - three losses total. Yes - you can make the arguements about those loses, but when I have 35 teams to get into 25 slots, I don't have room for them all. Decisions are made and right now Cal Lu and CMS are on the outside.

Win some more games and show some consistency and trust me, things will change. Keep complaining about the voters and it isn't going to come across as "constructive criticism" or "frustration", but more like someone who isn't looking at the big picture themself and refuses to believe that maybe, just maybe, they are looking through their own rose-colored glasses and can't take those glasses off long enough to hear what voters are telling them.

OxyBob - much of what you are accusing the voters of is stuff many people accuse you of. Take a deep breathe, realize that people have heard your arguements, and relax. If in a few weeks the Top 25 still looks the same and Cal Lu and CMS still playing well, then we can revisit this. Heck, this was the "Week 6" Top 25 Poll, there are usually 14 or 15 total polls... so we aren't even half way!!!

By the way, I made this arguement before and I never got a response from OxyBob on another board. Many voters do consider how a program does in the past when deciding which are the best 25 teams in the nation - especially who we think will be contending for a national title. When was the last time a SCIAC team made any headway in the national tournament? Good records mean one thing, but they can be overrated. A team could be undefeated and lose in the first round of the tournament. That tells me they were overrated and their schedule was soft. Top SCIAC teams tend to have pretty good records, but never go far in the tournament in recent years. That actually means something to voters when analyzing a team's season and schedule. Just a nuggent to pounder.

[sac]

Regarding traveling, the double standard will apply of teams losing because they travled so far and winning because the other team is inferior (obviously).  Until SCIAC teams travel to the Midwest/East and win on the road this will happen.

Only problem is they'll have no one to play as everyone is trying to escape the snow to play out West...

You bring up a good point, the only thing that will alter any perceptions or misconceptions is start winning games in the NCAA's.

It doesn't help when a team gets touted as being 'strong defensively' such as Whitworth was last year only to see the #2 team from the CCIW beat them in the NCAA's whilst leading scorer posterizes them for 47, and as a whole look completely ordinary.  http://athletics.wheaton.edu/Sports/mbball/mbbarchivedstats/2008/sect1.htm   (I realize they aren't SCIAC)

So while teams go West and look average, the same can be said for teams that go East.

[sac]

I wonder if the people who vote even bother to read the boards. Of course, there's a lot of BS to wade through, but there are actual gems of information in there, if you bother to look.

Yep - I know many of us read the boards... but it is the "BS" that makes it hard to take much of the information seriously, sometimes. And of course there are some (OxyBob) who never saw an arguement that wasn't worth making and certainly quick to run from when challenged.

As for the "homers" out there... I was wondering how Goucher got all of those points this week!

For the record I didn't vote for IWU and I didn't vote for any SCIAC team this poll. Reason no SCIAC? Despite many "big" wins, those teams seem to have some "big" losses as well. Speaking of which, while OxyBob doesn't see it necessary to count non-D3 losses in his examples, most pollsters including myself take them into account. CMS - three losses total. Cal Lu - three losses total. Yes - you can make the arguements about those loses, but when I have 35 teams to get into 25 slots, I don't have room for them all. Decisions are made and right now Cal Lu and CMS are on the outside.

Win some more games and show some consistency and trust me, things will change. Keep complaining about the voters and it isn't going to come across as "constructive criticism" or "frustration", but more like someone who isn't looking at the big picture themself and refuses to believe that maybe, just maybe, they are looking through their own rose-colored glasses and can't take those glasses off long enough to hear what voters are telling them.

OxyBob - much of what you are accusing the voters of is stuff many people accuse you of. Take a deep breathe, realize that people have heard your arguements, and relax. If in a few weeks the Top 25 still looks the same and Cal Lu and CMS still playing well, then we can revisit this. Heck, this was the "Week 6" Top 25 Poll, there are usually 14 or 15 total polls... so we aren't even half way!!!

By the way, I made this arguement before and I never got a response from OxyBob on another board. Many voters do consider how a program does in the past when deciding which are the best 25 teams in the nation - especially who we think will be contending for a national title. When was the last time a SCIAC team made any headway in the national tournament? Good records mean one thing, but they can be overrated. A team could be undefeated and lose in the first round of the tournament. That tells me they were overrated and their schedule was soft. Top SCIAC teams tend to have pretty good records, but never go far in the tournament in recent years. That actually means something to voters when analyzing a team's season and schedule. Just a nuggent to pounder.

I've seen this "it will sort itself out" used alot but I don't think its unfair to ask what the hell is going on with the poll, when I think some very legitimate issues are being raised.  That excuse can only be used for so long, by now everyone should have a clearer idea of who is worthy of voting and who isn't..........and I've seen some very obvious things that make no sense.

Seven teams from one conference getting votes this late in the year is wholely preposterous in my opinion and I've pointed out 3 teams that shouldn't really be getting any consideration, and thats not even includeing Elmhurst's 3 game skid.

The honest truth is the poll itself has lost a lot of credibility with the d3hoops.com fanbase, based largely on what are viewed as a slant towards one or two regions or one or two conferences............and this year imo its very hard to justify this particular slant.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

sac - I take exception to two thoughts:

First off, those angry about the Top 25 and feel it has lost its crediability are IMHO a minority. The fact conferences are respected more than others happens in ALL polls. There are some top conferences in D1 that get plenty of props despite the fact that maybe some of those teams don't deserve to be ranked at all. Sure, maybe some voters are putting too many odd CCIW teams in thier ballots, I get that, but we are talking about a couple of points here. There are only a few voters adding that odd team. Heck, until this week I still didn't understand why people were voting for Ursinus - a team in my backyard - and MHB - who was 6-6 entering this week's poll. Those teams are now both out completely. I have even been guilty of putting a team in my Top 25 this season that in hindsight was not a good decision. At the time, the reasoning I had gave me justification to have them on my ballot. If I knew then what I know NOW, they never would have made my pad of notes!

As for "working itself out in the end," it is a very valid arguement. There are 25 different mindsets and ways to breakdown, analyze, and decide on a ballot of 25 teams out of more than 400 total teams with probably 50 or more that may deserve a look. I promise you there aren't two voters out there who have the same way of deciding on those 25 teams. I know my style isn't like Pat's, Bob's, or other voters - it is my style and it is going to result in different results than the rest of the voting panel. And with limited information to base a lot of things on and changes in how teams are doing, voters have a lot to work out. Right now, many people have their minds in different places and it always works it's way out.

I am reevaluating teams I had dropped out of my poll at the beginning of the season and I am reevaluating teams I have in the poll right now. Teams like Randolph-Macon dropped out of my ballot very quickly, but they have changed since November and worked out what wasn't working for them early in the season. They are now playing very well and many coaches I talk are talking about RMC. That development has put them back into my ballot. Where as team like St. Norbert wasn't even on my radar until a week or two ago and now they have played well and convinced me they deserve a spot as well. I also have had teams I was high on for much of the season and understood their flaws - keeping them in the ballot anyway. Centre was one of those and despite a couple of losses, I didn't want to take them out of my Top 25 - they eventually played at a level that convinced me I had to remove them.

This is a fluid situation that is constantly being worked on... so it is eventually going to work out as more voters get more information and get to see these teams under more and more of a microscope. If you ever look at the Top 25 carefully, the "other teams" who receive votes starts out very high at the beginning of a season, but by February that number tends to have dropped as voters "work things out" to determine the top teams in the country. Voters are human and make mistakes as much as the teams out there - give them the chance to work that out.

[Pat Coleman]

by now everyone should have a clearer idea of who is worthy of voting and who isn't

I don't know if that's the case about halfway through the season, with conference play in a couple of significant leagues just starting (or not started at all, as in the NESCAC).

There are a handful of teams borderline worthy of voting, three of which happen to be in the same league and who have one collective head-to-head game between them. Different voters evaluate the results differently, and since there are so few here, that's understandable.

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion -- I'm just saying that I don't think there is an answer. I cannot tell a voter not to vote for someone that has reasonable credentials. (I couldn't really tell them not to vote for someone that has unreasonable credentials, though  if someone votes for, say, a sub-.500 team, I'll double-check with them and ask for their reasoning. But am I to tell someone they can't vote for North Central because someone else voted for Millikin? What's the logic there?

I don't for one second believe seven CCIW teams are among the best 43 in the nation, or however many were voted for this week. But aside from IWU, there's a compelling case to be made for each team that got votes.

[Mr. Ypsi]

by now everyone should have a clearer idea of who is worthy of voting and who isn't

I don't know if that's the case about halfway through the season, with conference play in a couple of significant leagues just starting (or not started at all, as in the NESCAC).

There are a handful of teams borderline worthy of voting, three of which happen to be in the same league and who have one collective head-to-head game between them. Different voters evaluate the results differently, and since there are so few here, that's understandable.

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion -- I'm just saying that I don't think there is an answer. I cannot tell a voter not to vote for someone that has reasonable credentials. (I couldn't really tell them not to vote for someone that has unreasonable credentials, though  if someone votes for, say, a sub-.500 team, I'll double-check with them and ask for their reasoning. But am I to tell someone they can't vote for North Central because someone else voted for Millikin? What's the logic there?

I don't for one second believe seven CCIW teams are among the best 43 in the nation, or however many were voted for this week. But aside from IWU, there's a compelling case to be made for each team that got votes.

Now that hurt!  Alas, I agree.

Though I don't for a minute think they will ultimately finish 7th.

[Pat Coleman]

Nor do I. Nor do I think they will finish the season on my Top 25 ballot, though, not the way they played the first 13 games.

[Bombers798891]

by now everyone should have a clearer idea of who is worthy of voting and who isn't

I don't know if that's the case about halfway through the season, with conference play in a couple of significant leagues just starting (or not started at all, as in the NESCAC).

There are a handful of teams borderline worthy of voting, three of which happen to be in the same league and who have one collective head-to-head game between them. Different voters evaluate the results differently, and since there are so few here, that's understandable.

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion -- I'm just saying that I don't think there is an answer. I cannot tell a voter not to vote for someone that has reasonable credentials. (I couldn't really tell them not to vote for someone that has unreasonable credentials, though  if someone votes for, say, a sub-.500 team, I'll double-check with them and ask for their reasoning. But am I to tell someone they can't vote for North Central because someone else voted for Millikin? What's the logic there?

I don't for one second believe seven CCIW teams are among the best 43 in the nation, or however many were voted for this week. But aside from IWU, there's a compelling case to be made for each team that got votes.

Let me ask this:

D-III sports present a unique challenge for two reasons:

Because of very little press/media, there's no way to really have a ton of knowledge on a wide range of teams who you don't see personally

Because so few teams go out of region, what do we have to compare them to? Would Ithaca be 13-1* if they played a different set of teams? Look at D-IA. Michigan State has played Texas, Kansas, Maryland and North Carolina already. So we're able to gauge how they stack up against those other power teams in other conferences, which gives us a better idea of the relative strength of conferences. There's very little of that in D-III I would suspect.

In a sense, it's a lot of guesswork. Educated? As well as you can be, I suppose. But still guesswork. I'm not faulting any of the voters (see point #1) but how many voters have seen any sort of significant stuff on most Top 25 teams?
Maybe someday D-III could organize some tournaments like the Big-10/ACC challenge to give us better ideas, although the finances may not work for it.

I've never liked polls for these very reasons. It's open to bias, both intentional and unintentional/unavoidable and preseason polls don't help when you have certain suprise teams that have to overcome not being ranked, while other teams that struggle early can be helped by a lofty preseason ranking. Again, to look at IC (I know this isn;t an E8 topic sorry), they didn't recieve a single vote in the preseason poll, now they're #13 and a dodgy halfcourt shot away from possibly being Top 10? After not a single voter thought to themselves before the year: "Hey, I think IC is one of the top 25 teams in the country"? But imagine if they started out #19? Where would they be then? Probably higher. But they'd still be the same team on January, 14, 2008 wouldn't they? Still 13-1 with a close loss?

Honestly, and I can say this as a journalist myself, polls serve a few functions, but one of the ones that no-one talks about is this: It gives journalists and fans something to debate over. It feeds the 24.7.365 news cycle we have. How many hours do fans and journalists talk about who's too high, or too low, or better than a team above them etc? Honestly, no one voter is any more knowledgable or right than the next voter. That's why polls use a bunch. If we were to see the spread of where the various voters put people, we'd be shocked.

I've always said, just win your conference tournament to get into the NCAA's and all the poll whining and complaining are rendered moot.  

[oldchap]

My apologies if I sound like an inveterate "homer", but looking at the win-loss percentage statistics up to the most recent games, I see that the top 26 teams get votes in the poll, with two exceptions: Chapman (12-2) and Westminster, MO (11-2). A number of other teams also get votes with lower records.

Westminster looks like they built their winning record on below 500 teams and one of their loss came against an unranked team, Hendrix (11-3).

On the other hand, Chapman's only "bad" loss was against whitman (6-7) in a game that saw two of their men (one starter and a bench player) out for 4 games with concussions in the first half. The other loss came against a ranked team, Whitworth. To make things more interesting, Chapman beat Claremont, which received at least one vote, and Claremont beat Whitworth.

I read with interest the pollsters posts and I understand their point of view. This is a difficult job, they do the best they can and I genuinely think that if there is some bias, it is entirely unintentional. I am just here to lobby for my team because it seems that Chapman and the Independents in general don't get the exposure they deserve. According to what I read in the "Bumble B's" thread, it seems that last year, most pundits had Chapman in the playoffs as a Pool B pick, yet the NCAA decided to pass them over.

[Pat Coleman]

You keep focusing on winning percentage. These aren't standings, however. They're rankings. A gaudy record is not necessarily indicative of a Top 25 team.

You suggest there may be bias on our part against Chapman, yet you correctly note that we projected them to be in the playoff field last year ... which is it?

[Pat Coleman]

Chapman -- and granted, this is only its regional games, and regional records for the opponents so it doesn't quite include everyone, just 12 of the games -- has the 317th "best" schedule in Division III men's basketball at the moment. Includes games played so far, only.

Westminster (Mo.) is at 399, though they have played even fewer regional games, six.

[oldchap]

You suggest there may be bias on our part against Chapman, yet you correctly note that we projected them to be in the playoff field last year ... which is it?

I didn't mean to come across with an accusing tone. I am trying to learn as much as possible and my comments were merely questions, not accusations.

Chapman -- and granted, this is only its regional games, and regional records for the opponents so it doesn't quite include everyone, just 12 of the games -- has the 317th "best" schedule in Division III men's basketball at the moment. Includes games played so far, only.

I get your point. I am starting to understand about "strength of schedule". Where did you get these numbers? Are they published somewhere?

[OxyBob]

Yep - I know many of us read the boards... but it is the "BS" that makes it hard to take much of the information seriously, sometimes. And of course there are some (OxyBob) who never saw an arguement that wasn't worth making and certainly quick to run from when challenged.

As for the "homers" out there... I was wondering how Goucher got all of those points this week!

For the record I didn't vote for IWU and I didn't vote for any SCIAC team this poll. Reason no SCIAC? Despite many "big" wins, those teams seem to have some "big" losses as well. Speaking of which, while OxyBob doesn't see it necessary to count non-D3 losses in his examples, most pollsters including myself take them into account. CMS - three losses total. Cal Lu - three losses total. Yes - you can make the arguements about those loses, but when I have 35 teams to get into 25 slots, I don't have room for them all. Decisions are made and right now Cal Lu and CMS are on the outside.

Win some more games and show some consistency and trust me, things will change. Keep complaining about the voters and it isn't going to come across as "constructive criticism" or "frustration", but more like someone who isn't looking at the big picture themself and refuses to believe that maybe, just maybe, they are looking through their own rose-colored glasses and can't take those glasses off long enough to hear what voters are telling them.

OxyBob - much of what you are accusing the voters of is stuff many people accuse you of. Take a deep breathe, realize that people have heard your arguements, and relax. If in a few weeks the Top 25 still looks the same and Cal Lu and CMS still playing well, then we can revisit this. Heck, this was the "Week 6" Top 25 Poll, there are usually 14 or 15 total polls... so we aren't even half way!!!

By the way, I made this arguement before and I never got a response from OxyBob on another board. Many voters do consider how a program does in the past when deciding which are the best 25 teams in the nation - especially who we think will be contending for a national title. When was the last time a SCIAC team made any headway in the national tournament? Good records mean one thing, but they can be overrated. A team could be undefeated and lose in the first round of the tournament. That tells me they were overrated and their schedule was soft. Top SCIAC teams tend to have pretty good records, but never go far in the tournament in recent years. That actually means something to voters when analyzing a team's season and schedule. Just a nuggent to pounder.

You're all over the place and have written so much out-and-out nonsense that I can't answer it all at once, so I'll do what I can now and maybe come back and write more later.

By the way, I made this arguement before and I never got a response from OxyBob on another board.

You wrote a post directed to me? Must have missed it. Sorry.

And of course there are some (OxyBob) who never saw an arguement that wasn't worth making and certainly quick to run from when challenged.

Baloney. Any place, any time, any subject, any forum. You name it, pal.

Speaking of which, while OxyBob doesn't see it necessary to count non-D3 losses in his examples, most pollsters including myself take them into account. CMS - three losses total.

More baloney. Actually, that's not baloney, it's pure horsesh!t:

Claremont (9-3), which beat No. 24 Whitworth, and which has only one D-III loss to 12-2 Chapman and 2 losses to the GSAC (which, as we learned from one of the resident college basketball mavens, "is one of the top 2-3 NAIA I leagues"), received 5 points in the "Other Receiving Votes" category.

It hasn't been a very good nonconference season so far for the SCIAC. Only Claremont (7-3) and Cal Lutheran (8-3) have winning records. The SCIAC is only 33-49 overall (.402), including 1-4 vs. UC Santa Cruz (which has got to be unprecedented), 0-7 vs. Chapman, 0-9 vs. NAIA-1 GSAC teams, and 11-1 vs. 1-12 La Sierra, who Oxy, Redlands, Whittier and La Verne have each played and beaten twice. Not exactly setting the D-III basketball world on fire here.

When was the last time a SCIAC team made any headway in the national tournament? Good records mean one thing, but they can be overrated. A team could be undefeated and lose in the first round of the tournament. That tells me they were overrated and their schedule was soft. Top SCIAC teams tend to have pretty good records, but never go far in the tournament in recent years.

Even more baloney. First, using your example, if a team is undefeated and loses in the first round of the NCAA tournament, that doesn't mean their schedule was soft or that they were overrated. It means they lost a game to another team which may be as good or better. If you truly believe what you said then I don't have much respect for your opinion when it comes to evaluating basketball teams. Second, I don't agree with your opinion of the SCIAC when it comes to the NCAA tournament. I think the SCIAC does as well as the NCAA allows them. I'll use my favorite team, Oxy, as an example:

Last season Oxy was the regular season champ and Pomona was the conference tournament champ and got the AQ. (Cal Lutheran likes to think they were "co-champs" with Oxy, but the Tigers beat the Kingsmen twice in conference, so we all know the real truth, right, scandihoovian?) The NCAA paired Oxy and Pomona in a first round knockout game, and Oxy won a close one at the end. So one SCIAC team cannibalized the other. In the second round Oxy traveled to Whitworth, which got a first round bye. Oxy was only down 6 with 7:30 to go, but they couldn't get over on a darned good Whitworth team. Disappointing, yes, but not a bad result.

(Aside No. 1: Can you imagine the crying, moaning, and whining which would occur if the NCAA paired the CCIW regular season conference champ with the CCIW tournament champ in a first round game, and then made the winner travel to play, say, the WIAC champ, which got a bye? God almighty, you'd hear the high-pitched screeching all the way from Bloomington! Titan Q and Gregory Sager would co-author a book, OUTRAGE!: How the NCAA Screwed the CCIW and Ruined D-III Basketball Forever!)

In 2006-07 Oxy was the SCIAC champ and got the AQ. This was the year of the infamous Mississippi College Debacle. After screwing up the parings, the NCAA went through a bunch of curious (read: bullsh!t) machinations by which No. 2 seed Oxy played host and No. 1 seed Mississippi College in the first round. Oxy played without its SCIAC Player of the Year and D3hoops All-West Region center Sam Betty and lost badly to MC, but even with Betty the Tigers probably would have lost to MC, which was a great team that I saw win the Tom Byron Classic at Westmont, an impressive feat for a D-III team.

(Aside No. 2: Imagine the indignation and fury which would have ensued if the NCAA pairings screw-up had happened to a CCIW team. Oh, the humanity!)

In 2005-06, Claremont won the conference and made the NCAA tournament as the SCIAC AQ, and Oxy also made the field. Again, the SCIAC teams were paired against each other in the first round. CMS got further screwed by having to play the game at Oxy, which has a bigger gym, rather than in its own Ducey Gym, where the Stags enjoy a decided home court advantage. Oxy won a close, low-scoring game. So again one SCIAC team cannibalized the other. In the second round Oxy traveled to Puget Sound, which got a first round bye. Oxy led by 1 with under 6 minutes to go, but UPS ultimately won it by 8. Again, disappointing, yes, but not a bad result.

In 2002-03, Oxy went 14-0 in the conference, hosted Aurora in the first round of the NCAA tournament, and won. The Tigers then traveled to Buena Vista and won again, before losing to Gustavus Adolphus, which lost in the championship game to Williams. I'd say that was a success.

Frankly, now that I wrote this, and after re-reading your comment, I have decided that you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the SCIAC.

As for the latest D3hoops Top 25, you vote in a poll which has 7 teams from one conference getting votes. One of them, Illinois Wesleyan, has 5 losses and is 0-2 in the conference. The poll has no credibility, and now you're all upset because posters are calling you on it. Maybe you didn't vote for IWU, but someone did, and those votes are a direct result of Titan Q's and Gregory Sager's endless drumbeating about the CCIW.  Isn't Titan Q a weekly guest on your basketball show? Why, yes, he is, and all you do while he's prattling on and on about the supposed greatness of the CCIW is sit there and agree with him.

OxyBob - much of what you are accusing the voters of is stuff many people accuse you of.

I don't know what you mean by "many." By many do you mean Mr. Ypsi, who likes to dance around his house in his IWU green-and-white Jockey shorts like Tom Cruise in Risky Business? Lest you think I'm alone in my opinion, well, think again. From the many (meaning way more than a few) e-mails, PMs, text messages, and face-to-face comments I receive from both SCIAC and non-SCIAC fans, players and coaches, all of whom agree with me, I don't really put much stock in "stuff many people accuse [me] of," whatever the heck that means.

Yes - you can make the arguements about those loses, but when I have 35 teams to get into 25 slots, I don't have room for them all. Decisions are made and right now Cal Lu and CMS are on the outside.

I never said that CLU and CMS should be in the Top 25. I said that it was a joke that Carthage and Lawrence received Top 25 votes when CLU received none but had beaten both of them, and I said it was a joke that IWU with 5 losses received more votes than CMS.

I'm tired from writing. I'm going to go take a nap.

OxyBob

[Pat Coleman]

I know you don't agree with the poll and you rarely have. But your conference hasn't done a whole lot since Oxy's one-year run to disprove it, either.

Just because you and Sac and a couple CCIW haters (let's be honest, you folks are out there) don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't have credibility.