MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Greek Tragedy]

You can talk about their 3-0 over St. Olaf, but I think it comes down to 4 more losses than St. Olaf, whether they call it "bad losses" or not, that is signifcant.

[AO]

You can talk about their 3-0 over St. Olaf, but I think it comes down to 4 more losses than St. Olaf, whether they call it "bad losses" or not, that is signifcant.

Pat and Dave seem convinced it had everything to do with the Buena Vista loss.   The SOS boost is not worth the loss according to the West committee.  You'd be better off scheduling Crossroads at home.  Obviously if you beat Buena Vista instead of lose by 20 then you don't even have to sweat it out during the selection show.

[John Gleich]

Interesting defensive strategy to put 6'6 Nord on either Wojta or Tusler most of the day...worked out mostly, there were a few times when they were just a step too quick for him, but he kept them in front of him for the most part.

Chasing around Bridge must have tired him out judging by his goose egg in the scoring column.

Looks like the West committee really hated the Royals based upon early reports that the final secret rankings had them at #6 despite 3 wins over Olaf.  Could have had 3 MIAC teams in the tourney if they don't bury Bethel in the rankings by selectively using the head to head criteria when considering Buena Vista but not St. Olaf.

I would have to add that Bethel's losses to Hamline and Carleton certainly didn't help either.

Sure but "bad losses" aren't really a part of the criteria.  Bethel had a much better resume than Buena Vista but was put below them due to 1 head to head matchup.  Surely then St. Olaf who has a similar resume to Bethel (better WP but worse SOS and wins versus Regionally ranked) would be punished more heavily for losing 0-3 in the head to head?  I think the West committee was nervous about getting bids and set Olaf up to be the first West team on the board believing that the committee wouldn't look past the win pct.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they just didn't apply the criteria themselves.

Bad losses aren't part of the criteria... But losses are (indirectly, through the winning percentage). Bethel's 19-9 is just .679 winning %, while STO's 21-5 is .808.

In order for Bethel to be ahead if STO, they also would have had to jump over Whitman (.792) and Buena Vista (.720). And though the strength of schedules were not equal.

It's hard to say how Dubuque and Whitworth might have factored into the regional rankings too... Even though they got pool A bids, the West region committee would have slotted them in and that could have factored in to where the West Pool C candidates fell.

It should be interesting to see how the tournament plays out. There was lots of parity this season and there's a decent amount of balance across the brackets. Very few gimme games and no ready clear path to Salem for any team.

[Pat Coleman]

Interesting defensive strategy to put 6'6 Nord on either Wojta or Tusler most of the day...worked out mostly, there were a few times when they were just a step too quick for him, but he kept them in front of him for the most part.

Chasing around Bridge must have tired him out judging by his goose egg in the scoring column.

Looks like the West committee really hated the Royals based upon early reports that the final secret rankings had them at #6 despite 3 wins over Olaf.  Could have had 3 MIAC teams in the tourney if they don't bury Bethel in the rankings by selectively using the head to head criteria when considering Buena Vista but not St. Olaf.

I would have to add that Bethel's losses to Hamline and Carleton certainly didn't help either.

Sure but "bad losses" aren't really a part of the criteria.  Bethel had a much better resume than Buena Vista but was put below them due to 1 head to head matchup.  Surely then St. Olaf who has a similar resume to Bethel (better WP but worse SOS and wins versus Regionally ranked) would be punished more heavily for losing 0-3 in the head to head?  I think the West committee was nervous about getting bids and set Olaf up to be the first West team on the board believing that the committee wouldn't look past the win pct.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they just didn't apply the criteria themselves.

Bad losses aren't part of the criteria... But losses are (indirectly, through the winning percentage). Bethel's 19-9 is just .679 winning %, while STO's 21-5 is .808.

You beat me to this post -- this is exactly correct. Bad losses aren't necessarily looked at separately but losing is losing.

[AO]

Interesting defensive strategy to put 6'6 Nord on either Wojta or Tusler most of the day...worked out mostly, there were a few times when they were just a step too quick for him, but he kept them in front of him for the most part.

Chasing around Bridge must have tired him out judging by his goose egg in the scoring column.

Looks like the West committee really hated the Royals based upon early reports that the final secret rankings had them at #6 despite 3 wins over Olaf.  Could have had 3 MIAC teams in the tourney if they don't bury Bethel in the rankings by selectively using the head to head criteria when considering Buena Vista but not St. Olaf.

I would have to add that Bethel's losses to Hamline and Carleton certainly didn't help either.

Sure but "bad losses" aren't really a part of the criteria.  Bethel had a much better resume than Buena Vista but was put below them due to 1 head to head matchup.  Surely then St. Olaf who has a similar resume to Bethel (better WP but worse SOS and wins versus Regionally ranked) would be punished more heavily for losing 0-3 in the head to head?  I think the West committee was nervous about getting bids and set Olaf up to be the first West team on the board believing that the committee wouldn't look past the win pct.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they just didn't apply the criteria themselves.

Bad losses aren't part of the criteria... But losses are (indirectly, through the winning percentage). Bethel's 19-9 is just .679 winning %, while STO's 21-5 is .808.

You beat me to this post -- this is exactly correct. Bad losses aren't necessarily looked at separately but losing is losing.

.  Wouldn't matter if the loss was to Gustavus Concordia or Carleton.  I think 3-0 and a SOS advantage is pretty convincing.  Good wins are a criteria and Bethel clearly had good wins.

[miacsuperfan]

I agree with AO.   BUs omission from the tournament is unfortunate in light of their last month.  They were clearly the second best team in the league the final four weeks,  and in this 'what have you done for me lately' world, it makes no sense that they are not still playing.  I am happy for Oles, but believe that Royals were clearly stiffed by the process.  I think they could have done some damage.....hopefully Toms and Olaf will represent the league well.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I agree with AO.   BUs omission from the tournament is unfortunate in light of their last month.  They were clearly the second best team in the league the final four weeks,  and in this 'what have you done for me lately' world, it makes no sense that they are not still playing.  I am happy for Oles, but believe that Royals were clearly stiffed by the process.  I think they could have done some damage.....hopefully Toms and Olaf will represent the league well.

Unlike D1, D3 has no late season counts more criterion - November is just as important as February.  Bethel may well have been the second best team by the end, but by the criteria, they were third.  Since they were #7 while Olaf was #2 in the last public regional rankings (when they were already 2-0 against Olaf), I was certain that third win wouldn't be enough to jump them.

Rail against the criteria if you wish, but by the rules set by d3 members, the committee got it right.

[Greek Tragedy]

You can talk about their 3-0 over St. Olaf, but I think it comes down to 4 more losses than St. Olaf, whether they call it "bad losses" or not, that is signifcant.

Pat and Dave seem convinced it had everything to do with the Buena Vista loss.   The SOS boost is not worth the loss according to the West committee.  You'd be better off scheduling Crossroads at home.  Obviously if you beat Buena Vista instead of lose by 20 then you don't even have to sweat it out during the selection show.

Here, I'm talking about STO and Bethel's head to head. Posters were complaining about how STO got in and how Bethel didn't because Bethel was 3-0 against STO. I was simply stating Bethel also had 4 more losses. Here, you are saying that they didn't get in because of the BV loss, meaning BV was probably ahead of Bethel in the regional rankings. Am I correct?

Wouldn't matter if the loss was to Gustavus Concordia or Carleton.  I think 3-0 and a SOS advantage is pretty convincing.  Good wins are a criteria and Bethel clearly had good wins.

Here it looks like you're going back to STO vs Bethel argument.

What are you arguing? STO vs Bethel or Bethel vs BV (the BV loss effecting who was ahead of who in the regional rankings)?

[AO]

You can talk about their 3-0 over St. Olaf, but I think it comes down to 4 more losses than St. Olaf, whether they call it "bad losses" or not, that is signifcant.

Pat and Dave seem convinced it had everything to do with the Buena Vista loss.   The SOS boost is not worth the loss according to the West committee.  You'd be better off scheduling Crossroads at home.  Obviously if you beat Buena Vista instead of lose by 20 then you don't even have to sweat it out during the selection show.

Here, I'm talking about STO and Bethel's head to head. Posters were complaining about how STO got in and how Bethel didn't because Bethel was 3-0 against STO. I was simply stating Bethel also had 4 more losses. Here, you are saying that they didn't get in because of the BV loss, meaning BV was probably ahead of Bethel in the regional rankings. Am I correct?

Wouldn't matter if the loss was to Gustavus Concordia or Carleton.  I think 3-0 and a SOS advantage is pretty convincing.  Good wins are a criteria and Bethel clearly had good wins.

Here it looks like you're going back to STO vs Bethel argument.

What are you arguing? STO vs Bethel or Bethel vs BV (the BV loss effecting who was ahead of who in the regional rankings)?

I'm arguing for both.  If Dave doesn't get a "hot tip" about the regional rankings midway through the selections on Sunday night, they likely put Bethel in the projected field.  Knightslappy and others in the Pool C board also picked Bethel.  I just listened to the interview with Jeff Burns and he couldn't stop talking about how important that good wins were.  Wins over teams with 15 wins and wins on the road.  I'd be surprised if anyone else in the field had 3 wins on the road against the #1 and #2 teams in a region.  I also got the feeling that they might have spent too much time setting up bids and brackets before the final games were played.  Bethel's had 3 huge SOS boosting games after the last public regional rankings that took them from a .539 to a .564. Not only does it not help you to "play well at the end of the season", the committee can ignore late additions to SOS because they've already argued against you so many times.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think that's the case. I think you're ignoring the perfectly reasonable evidence people have provided here because you don't think it's important. But losing other games is important. The whole schedule counts, not just the last few games, not just the three games vs. St. Olaf.

[AO]

I don't think that's the case. I think you're ignoring the perfectly reasonable evidence people have provided here because you don't think it's important. But losing other games is important. The whole schedule counts, not just the last few games, not just the three games vs. St. Olaf.

Would it surprise you if it was the case?  You seemed awful confused when it was revealed on Sunday night.  Of course it's reasonable that the committee favored winning percentage over all other criteria, but that's not what I heard from Jeff.  I don't think it's the travesty of the century that Bethel didn't get in, but I think they had a better case than a lot of teams in recent memory.  Massey has them at #17. 

[Pat Coleman]

Would it surprise you if it was the case?  You seemed awful confused when it was revealed on Sunday night.  Of course it's reasonable that the committee favored winning percentage over all other criteria, but that's not what I heard from Jeff.  I don't think it's the travesty of the century that Bethel didn't get in, but I think they had a better case than a lot of teams in recent memory.  Massey has them at #17. 

We hadn't done that deep dive into the Bethel resume at that point on the show because we weren't at the point of considering them yet. Once I did and was reminded of the Buena Vista head-to-head result, it made more sense.

Massey always loves the WIAC and MIAC. They're really good conferences but Massey's numbers seem to be inordinately high for this part of the country.

[GoldandBlueBU]

I don't think that's the case. I think you're ignoring the perfectly reasonable evidence people have provided here because you don't think it's important. But losing other games is important. The whole schedule counts, not just the last few games, not just the three games vs. St. Olaf.

Would it surprise you if it was the case?  You seemed awful confused when it was revealed on Sunday night.  Of course it's reasonable that the committee favored winning percentage over all other criteria, but that's not what I heard from Jeff.  I don't think it's the travesty of the century that Bethel didn't get in, but I think they had a better case than a lot of teams in recent memory.  Massey has them at #17.

I appreciate the BU apologetics, AO!  Bummed that they didn't get in, especially would've like to see Zimmerman get a chance to extend his season.  How do you like your Eagles matching up with UST?  UST is certainly beatable this year, IMO. (now watch them go on a deep playoff run....)

As I'm not versed on the how playoffs are set, had BU defeated UST and grabbed the auto-bid, would Olaf have gotten in, giving the MIAC 3 teams?  Or is the MIAC not well enough regarded to get that many entrants?

[AO]

I don't think that's the case. I think you're ignoring the perfectly reasonable evidence people have provided here because you don't think it's important. But losing other games is important. The whole schedule counts, not just the last few games, not just the three games vs. St. Olaf.

Would it surprise you if it was the case?  You seemed awful confused when it was revealed on Sunday night.  Of course it's reasonable that the committee favored winning percentage over all other criteria, but that's not what I heard from Jeff.  I don't think it's the travesty of the century that Bethel didn't get in, but I think they had a better case than a lot of teams in recent memory.  Massey has them at #17.

I appreciate the BU apologetics, AO!  Bummed that they didn't get in, especially would've like to see Zimmerman get a chance to extend his season.  How do you like your Eagles matching up with UST?  UST is certainly beatable this year, IMO. (now watch them go on a deep playoff run....)

As I'm not versed on the how playoffs are set, had BU defeated UST and grabbed the auto-bid, would Olaf have gotten in, giving the MIAC 3 teams?  Or is the MIAC not well enough regarded to get that many entrants?

The only way Olaf wouldn't get in if BU won was if they were the last at-large bid which I don't think they were.  The MIAC was well regarded by the criteria (perceptions and the "eye test" don't matter) as they had very few non-conference losses (you can thank the UMAC).  One of the reasons the NESCAC gets 4 teams in while the MIAC only gets 2 is the number of conference games.  The NESCAC plays only 10 conference games allowing them to bump up their SOS by not beating up each other in the full double round robin that the MIAC plays. 

I don't know how well Northwestern can match up.  UST should be 20 point favorites but it's a neutral site and I'd imagine there's a lot to learn from the Bethel-Tommie game tapes.  The program at least has some positive history in that gym from beating the #15 Green Knights in their tourney in 2009.  I think they're bound to pull a big upset one of these years. 

[stag44]

Just finished up putting together PER metrics and published the top 100 players in the nation this year. I'll narrow this to include just the NCAA eligible players later this week.

It does seem that the figures skew slightly higher than I would have expected but that could be attributed to the larger variance between players in D3 vs the NBA.

I love seeing Tyler Gaffaney at #3 - he should be a 1st Team All American this year!

http://stag44.blogspot.com/2015/03/ncaa-division-3-per-rankings-march-2.html