MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[AO]

Carleton's coach Kershaw appears on the D3Hoops Marathon. Interesting tidbit in there where Kershaw and the host talk about the conference basketball schedule and Kershaw mentions that the coaches aren't in favor of the current set up. Interview starts around the 43 minute mark:

https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2022-23/marathon

I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to listen, but is he talking too many conference games? Going to split divisions? Anything else?

His statement on the schedule starts with "we are the only 11-team conference in the country in D3 that plays a true round-robin schedule" and then advocated for playing everybody in the conference three times in two years, similar to the ODAC.

This is the first gripe I've heard about the scheduling--ever. I worked in the SJU athletic department from 2005-2007 and never heard a peep about this schedule structure. It has been this way since 1983-84. I just simply do not see the great issue here. Dave McHugh seems 100% on board with following the ODAC standard and he's a pretty reasonable guy. What am I missing?

The 20 game conference schedule severely limits the number of non-conference games a team can play, which, in turn, can hurt the Pool C chances of those teams in selection.  It's very hard to get a nationally competitive SOS with so few non-conference games.

Dropping down to 15 conference games would put the league more in line with most other conferences (usually 14-18 conference games) and make it easier to schedule more competitively.

It pains me to say this as a Johnnie, but I sense that having St. Thomas for all those years made it easy to not have to worry about the number of conference games because you had a team that was year-in and year-out a national power. As a result, the conference SOS got a bump and there was always discussion of a pool C bid for a second MIAC team.

The 20 game schedule would be fine if the NCAA moves to a better strength of schedule stat at some point.  Massey ranks Carleton's SoS 89th while the NCAA has it at 202nd.  Carleton is hurt by the broken home/away multiplier as they played at 2-23 Martin Luther this year.  If you're not familiar with the broken home/away multiplier, the NCAA makes your SoS worse if you play below average teams on the road instead of at home. 

[SagatagSam]

That's awfully strange. Doesn't the NCAA's NET rankings for Division I apply here also? And, why wouldn't they (or couldn't they) use it in D3? All you need to do is adjust the numbers for the size of each quadrant.

The NET rankings at the D1 level are pretty straight forward:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's awfully strange. Doesn't the NCAA's NET rankings for Division I apply here also? And, why wouldn't they (or couldn't they) use it in D3? All you need to do is adjust the numbers for the size of each quadrant.

The NET rankings at the D1 level are pretty straight forward:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

Every Division selects their own criteria.  Nothing at D1 really applies in D3.

[GoldandBlueBU]

I remember it came into play in the 2016-2017 season, where Bethel ultimately won the conference tournament against SJU, and UST got an at large bid as well, but SJU was left out, though they had a solid record and had actually knocked UST out of the MIAC playoffs.  Given the playoff evaluation factors, the MIAC's double round robin was a hinderance.

[SagatagSam]

That's awfully strange. Doesn't the NCAA's NET rankings for Division I apply here also? And, why wouldn't they (or couldn't they) use it in D3? All you need to do is adjust the numbers for the size of each quadrant.

The NET rankings at the D1 level are pretty straight forward:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

Every Division selects their own criteria.  Nothing at D1 really applies in D3.

Is there a quick and easy place to find the D3 selection criteria?

[SagatagSam]

Worth re-posting here, courtesy of @d3bubble:



In short, the MIAC will not have any at-large bids this season.

[AO]

That's awfully strange. Doesn't the NCAA's NET rankings for Division I apply here also? And, why wouldn't they (or couldn't they) use it in D3? All you need to do is adjust the numbers for the size of each quadrant.

The NET rankings at the D1 level are pretty straight forward:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

Every Division selects their own criteria.  Nothing at D1 really applies in D3.

Is there a quick and easy place to find the D3 selection criteria?

https://d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaatournament

Usually comes down to 3 stats: Win pct, SoS, and Results vs Regionally Ranked Opponents. 

The models that are projecting Carleton to be just off the bubble are giving them another regular season loss, so winning out could keep hopes alive for a bit, but the SoS is just going to be too low for the committee.

[Retired Old Rat]

[...]
Hamline blows the doors off the Johnnies in Collegeville
[...]

I didn't turn the game on until halftime and was stunned.

Scoring 52 points in a half is going to put you in a fantastic position to win 99.99% of the time. Shooting 66.7% (10-15) from three-point range was just too much for the Johnnies to overcome.

You have any idea if team chemistry is OK with the Johnnies?  Something seemed...off about them yesterday, and combined with their so- so second half of the season, I'm wondering if all is well in Collegeville?  When I saw them earlier this season,  I thought they were the runaway favorite to win the league.   Yesterday they looked almost disinterested at times, especially late in the first half.   Maybe it was just a product of getting blown out by a team that couldn't miss, but they didn't look right.

I have the same question.  Something just doesn't seem right.

[SagatagSam]

Carleton's coach Kershaw appears on the D3Hoops Marathon. Interesting tidbit in there where Kershaw and the host talk about the conference basketball schedule and Kershaw mentions that the coaches aren't in favor of the current set up. Interview starts around the 43 minute mark:

https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2022-23/marathon

I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to listen, but is he talking too many conference games? Going to split divisions? Anything else?

His statement on the schedule starts with "we are the only 11-team conference in the country in D3 that plays a true round-robin schedule" and then advocated for playing everybody in the conference three times in two years, similar to the ODAC.

This is the first gripe I've heard about the scheduling--ever. I worked in the SJU athletic department from 2005-2007 and never heard a peep about this schedule structure. It has been this way since 1983-84. I just simply do not see the great issue here. Dave McHugh seems 100% on board with following the ODAC standard and he's a pretty reasonable guy. What am I missing?

The 20 game conference schedule severely limits the number of non-conference games a team can play, which, in turn, can hurt the Pool C chances of those teams in selection.  It's very hard to get a nationally competitive SOS with so few non-conference games.

Dropping down to 15 conference games would put the league more in line with most other conferences (usually 14-18 conference games) and make it easier to schedule more competitively.

It pains me to say this as a Johnnie, but I sense that having St. Thomas for all those years made it easy to not have to worry about the number of conference games because you had a team that was year-in and year-out a national power. As a result, the conference SOS got a bump and there was always discussion of a pool C bid for a second MIAC team.

The 20 game schedule would be fine if the NCAA moves to a better strength of schedule stat at some point.  Massey ranks Carleton's SoS 89th while the NCAA has it at 202nd.  Carleton is hurt by the broken home/away multiplier as they played at 2-23 Martin Luther this year.  If you're not familiar with the broken home/away multiplier, the NCAA makes your SoS worse if you play below average teams on the road instead of at home.

On the one hand, I have an affinity for the double round robin where everybody plays everybody both home and away. It is the best way to crown a regular season champion. There's no wiggle room to say, "Yeah, well, [CROWNED CHAMPION] didn't have to play [SECOND/THIRD PLACE] on the road."

But, I get the argument that the conference needs more non-conference games for national tournament purposes. And, if that's what it takes, then I guess I'd be OK with cutting the conference schedule down to something like 16-18 games.

[GoldandBlueBU]

On the one hand, I have an affinity for the double round robin where everybody plays everybody both home and away. It is the best way to crown a regular season champion. There's no wiggle room to say, "Yeah, well, [CROWNED CHAMPION] didn't have to play [SECOND/THIRD PLACE] on the road."

But, I get the argument that the conference needs more non-conference games for national tournament purposes. And, if that's what it takes, then I guess I'd be OK with cutting the conference schedule down to something like 16-18 games.

From the perspective of seeing how teams have developed over the year, and having strong MIAC rivalries, I really like the double round robin, but can certainly see how it hurts for getting multiple teams qualified.

Maybe a schedule like the big ten, where you play every team once, and some of them twice, and it changes by year?

[SagatagSam]

Wednesday Night's games:

Concordia (T-8) at Gustavus (5). Gustavus needs this win to hang on to a playoff spot. The Gusties are just half game ahead of sixth place Hamline and one game ahead of seventh place St. Olaf. Concordia, while not mathematically eliminated from the playoff, is so close to doing so that its simply not worth trying to contrive a scenario where they somehow get in.

Hamline (6) at St. Scholastica (10). Hamline has won two of its past three, and the two wins have come against current playoff teams. St. Scholastica is also playing arguably its best basketball of the season, and Duluth has proven a difficult venue for the rest of the MIAC as the Saints are 5-4 at home this season.  Hamline won the first matchup in St. Paul by 22 on November 22. Hamline needs the win to hang on to the last playoff spot.

Augsburg (11) at St. Mary's (4). St. Mary's throttled Augsburg by 34 points back on January 16 in Minneapolis. The Cardinals have been on the short end of some close games in their last six games, going 3-3 with the three losses coming by a total of 8 points, including the 87-84 overtime heartbreaker at Hamline. Like Gustavus and Hamline, St. Mary's needs a win here to hang on to its playoff spot.

St. Olaf (7) at Macalester (3). MAC is currently in, and St. Olaf is currently out of the playoffs. The Oles won the first matchup in Northfield, 83-59. A win for the Oles keeps them in the playoff conversation, a loss puts the playoff in serious jeopardy. A win for the Scots plus an SJU win keeps the regular season championship dream alive, and a loss would shift the focus on obtaining the second seed. The Scots are currently 2.5 games ahead of the cut line, so there is some cushion there. But, a loss makes thing much less comfortable going into the final games.

St. John's (2) at Carleton (1). Carleton has a chance to clinch a share of the MIAC regular season championship at home. It would be the first since the 2010-11 season when the Knights shared the crown with St. Thomas. St. John's, on the other hand, would come one step closer to clinching a playoff spot and keep pace with Macalester for the second seed, for which SJU currently holds the tiebreaker.  Carleton has been relatively consistent, and the Johnnies have played Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde since early January. If the Johnnies show up with their "A" game, this one will come down to the wire. Anything less, will have the Johnnies staring down the prospect of a three seed and a quarterfinal matchup.

Let's hope there is a good showing in the West Gym in Northfield and there is a lot of energy and excitement for this game. It deserves it.

[SagatagSam]

On the one hand, I have an affinity for the double round robin where everybody plays everybody both home and away. It is the best way to crown a regular season champion. There's no wiggle room to say, "Yeah, well, [CROWNED CHAMPION] didn't have to play [SECOND/THIRD PLACE] on the road."

But, I get the argument that the conference needs more non-conference games for national tournament purposes. And, if that's what it takes, then I guess I'd be OK with cutting the conference schedule down to something like 16-18 games.

From the perspective of seeing how teams have developed over the year, and having strong MIAC rivalries, I really like the double round robin, but can certainly see how it hurts for getting multiple teams qualified.

Maybe a schedule like the big ten, where you play every team once, and some of them twice, and it changes by year?

That's what I would advocate for. I don't see how you could go through a season without playing a team in your conference at all. I would try to scale it back to 18 games first and try that out for a few years to see if there is a meaningful bump with an extra two non-conference games. No sense in dropping to 16 right away.

[SagatagSam]

On the one hand, I have an affinity for the double round robin where everybody plays everybody both home and away. It is the best way to crown a regular season champion. There's no wiggle room to say, "Yeah, well, [CROWNED CHAMPION] didn't have to play [SECOND/THIRD PLACE] on the road."

But, I get the argument that the conference needs more non-conference games for national tournament purposes. And, if that's what it takes, then I guess I'd be OK with cutting the conference schedule down to something like 16-18 games.

From the perspective of seeing how teams have developed over the year, and having strong MIAC rivalries, I really like the double round robin, but can certainly see how it hurts for getting multiple teams qualified.

Maybe a schedule like the big ten, where you play every team once, and some of them twice, and it changes by year?

That's what I would advocate for. I don't see how you could go through a season without playing a team in your conference at all. I would try to scale it back to 18 games first and try that out for a few years to see if there is a meaningful bump with an extra two non-conference games. No sense in dropping to 16 right away.

The more I think about this, I can also think of scenarios under a 18-or-fewer-game conference schedule where a team (or two) could get hosed nationally because they don't end up playing the strongest team in the conference twice. Think about being a bubble team in the old MIAC and only playing St. Thomas once? That's gotta sting the ol' SOS a little bit.

Same thing could happen in the future.

I accept that I could be completely wrong on all of this, but I'm just trying to think through the potential pitfalls of a smaller conference season.

[AO]

Just pull a NESCAC and play everybody once, and maybe your main rivals twice (the 2nd game being a non-conference game).

[jamtod]

On the one hand, I have an affinity for the double round robin where everybody plays everybody both home and away. It is the best way to crown a regular season champion. There's no wiggle room to say, "Yeah, well, [CROWNED CHAMPION] didn't have to play [SECOND/THIRD PLACE] on the road."

But, I get the argument that the conference needs more non-conference games for national tournament purposes. And, if that's what it takes, then I guess I'd be OK with cutting the conference schedule down to something like 16-18 games.

From the perspective of seeing how teams have developed over the year, and having strong MIAC rivalries, I really like the double round robin, but can certainly see how it hurts for getting multiple teams qualified.

Maybe a schedule like the big ten, where you play every team once, and some of them twice, and it changes by year?

That's what I would advocate for. I don't see how you could go through a season without playing a team in your conference at all. I would try to scale it back to 18 games first and try that out for a few years to see if there is a meaningful bump with an extra two non-conference games. No sense in dropping to 16 right away.

The more I think about this, I can also think of scenarios under a 18-or-fewer-game conference schedule where a team (or two) could get hosed nationally because they don't end up playing the strongest team in the conference twice. Think about being a bubble team in the old MIAC and only playing St. Thomas once? That's gotta sting the ol' SOS a little bit.

Same thing could happen in the future.

I accept that I could be completely wrong on all of this, but I'm just trying to think through the potential pitfalls of a smaller conference season.

Could you model the protected games around something like what football does where the top teams are going to play each other based on prior year performance?