Bumblin' B's

[susiddad]

D Mac....what are yor thoughts here.  You have seen SU play.

[susiddad]

Wiz.  Whats unfortunate is that your guards shot 3-31 and your defending them.  At least say they had the flu or something. 

[The Wiz]

Wiz.  Whats unfortunate is that your guards shot 3-31 and your defending them.  At least say they had the flu or something. 

What's unfortunate is that your not very intelligent. If you read my previous blogs, I said Chapman still should have won. The shooting percentage was to show that it isn't easy beating a team shooting that percentage.

[susiddad]

fair point.  I spoke to a ncaa selection committee member and he said Chapman is in, but they have to leave their guards at home.

[The Wiz]

fair point.  I spoke to a ncaa selection committee member and he said Chapman is in, but they have to leave their guards at home.

Ha! I enjoy the sarcasm, but Chapman's guards are a vital part of their team. They had one bad night, and unfortunately it cost them a crucial loss that very well may keep them out the playoffs.

[susiddad]

Thank you.  For those who don't know, SU lost title game on a 3 with 9 seconds to go on the road against a Scranton team that was undefeated at home all year.  They should have ahd the ball up 1 with 30 seconds left, however the refs incorrectly gave the ball to Scranton on a deflection. 

[Ralph Turner]

Maryville lost to a 9-16 team.  Susquehanna did not.  Champions guards shot 3-31 in a game.  That is amazing and that should count for a lot especially when SU did not have any loss like that.  And excuses that are performance based "an off shooting night" just means your team couldnt gut out a win against a poor team.  

Can someone explain why SU is not in here and Maryville which sounds like an online college is in the discussion?

I am not a Maryville fan.  In fact, they are one of the teams that I like to root against most of the time.  Kinda like the Green Bay Packers, Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees thing.

Criteria that the committee might be reviewing...

2-point home loss to SCAC Pool A Centre
6-point road loss to SCAC Pool ACentre
8-point neutral floor win over ODAC Pool A VWC
6-point road loss to HCAC Pool A Transylvania
39-point home win over USA South Pool A Averett.

We don't know which of those teams are in the Regional rankings, but they are all "in-region" results.

We know that Maryville has an in-region record of 16-6, and that the win over D-2 rival Carson Newman does not count.

With all of the losses in the South Region, we don't know if they will be ranked.  We will find out what the national committee thinks.

What factors that are criteria do you think make the case for Susquehanna?

Thanks.  

[The Wiz]

I have an honest question for the Hall of Famers on the board, does the committee look at margin of victory or losses to teams? Also, do road/home records matter either? This is a serious question.

Thanks.

[Boal]

Maryville lost to a 9-16 team.  Susquehanna did not.  Champions guards shot 3-31 in a game.  That is amazing and that should count for a lot especially when SU did not have any loss like that.  And excuses that are performance based "an off shooting night" just means your team couldnt gut out a win against a poor team.  

Can someone explain why SU is not in here and Maryville which sounds like an online college is in the discussion?

I am not a Maryville fan.  In fact, they are one of the teams that I like to root against most of the time.  Kinda like the Green Bay Packers, Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees thing.

Criteria that the committee might be reviewing...

2-point home loss to SCAC Pool A Centre
6-point road loss to SCAC Pool ACentre
8-point neutral floor win over ODAC Pool A VWC
6-point road loss to HCAC Pool A Transylvania
39-point home win over USA South Pool A Averett.

We don't know which of those teams are in the Regional rankings, but they are all "in-region" results.

We know that Maryville has an in-region record of 16-6, and that the win over D-2 rival Carson Newman does not count.

With all of the losses in the South Region, we don't know if they will be ranked.  We will find out what the national committee thinks.

What factors that are criteria do you think make the case for Susquehanna?

Thanks.  

I agree.  I would like to hear your arguments for Susquehanna.  Welcome to the boards, but your team just lost.  These other teams are on huge winning streaks.  If Susquehanna goes it will be a travesty just like last year where Monravia got in and Chapman did not.

[oldchap]

Wiz.  Whats unfortunate is that your guards shot 3-31 and your defending them.  At least say they had the flu or something. 

In regards to Chapman losing to Dallas, here are some statistics against the two best teams Chapman played against:

Vanguard (NAIA division I): Chapman shot 8-12 from 3 pt and had a rebounding margin of +8, won the game by 12
CMS (SCIAC champion, Pool A pick): Chapman shot 3-11 from 3 pt, had a rebounding margin of +8, won the game by 5
Dallas: Chapman shot 1-10 from 3 pt and lost the game by 3 points

The team is 42% from 3 pt range on the season. You can see that one more 3 pt made by the Chapman guards would have made the difference. They should have never lost that game and yet it happened. In basketball, there's never a 100% chance to win. Dallas had a 10% chance to win that game and they pulled it off.

If that 3 pt costs them a playoff berth, so be it. They should have won or should have put together a better schedule. But I maintain that the team has the quality required to be in the top 60 that will make the playoffs.

[Ralph Turner]

I have an honest question for the Hall of Famers on the board, does the committee look at margin of victory or losses to teams? Also, do road/home records matter either? This is a serious question.

Thanks.

Hello, The Wiz.

Neither MOV nor road/home are criteria.  "Sixteen game winning streaks" (aka how they were playing at the end of the season) is not a criterion either.

Also, the Handbook uses "results" in several places instead of "won/loss percentage"

I guess that is where they want "subjectivity".

Selection Criteria.

Primary Criteria

The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA
championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/
selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth
years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members
shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.

Secondary Criteria

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the
secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not
listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from
other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the basketball committee.

[Ralph Turner]

Wiz.  Whats unfortunate is that your guards shot 3-31 and your defending them.  At least say they had the flu or something. 

In regards to Chapman losing to Dallas, here is the bottom line. Here are some statistics against the two best teams Chapman played against:

Vanguard (NAIA division I): Chapman shot 8-12 from 3 pt and had a rebounding margin of +8, won the game by 12
CMS (SCIAC champion, Pool A pick): Chapman shot 3-11 from 3 pt, had a rebounding margin of +8, won the game by 5
Dallas: Chapman shot 1-10 from 3 pt and lost the game by 3 points

The team is 42% from 3 pt range on the season. You can see that one more 3 pt made by the Chapman guards would have made the difference. They should have never lost that game and yet it happened. In basketball, there's never a 100% chance to win. Dallas had a 10% chance to win that game and they pulled it off.

If that 3 pt costs them a playoff berth, so be it. They should have won or should have put together a better schedule. But I maintain that the team has the quality required to be in the top 60 that will make the playoffs.

I agree!  And you are finally comprehending how hard it it to make the NCAA's!   

[scottiedoug]

susidad I hope you know more about basketball than you do about colleges.  The crack that " Maryville which sounds like an online college is in the discussion" indicates profound ignorance not only of Maryville College but of its basketball history.  Try sticking to facts if you have any that help you.

[Pat Coleman]

He just basically stated on another board that history started last year for him. So you might want to let him know.

[sac]

This argument isn't going to be settled before noon tommorrow without a cage match between mascots......Panthers and Scots.

Despite my affection for things named after me, I have to go with the Panther on this one.  Much more ferocious, unless alcohol and soccer are involved then all bets are off.