Top 25 talk

[sac]

Looks like the Great Lakes hosts will end up being Marietta/Capital or Wabash/Wooster.  Wabash being in Western Indiana would make it a little easier but its still just out of reach for Minneapolis schools. 

More than likely the team that doesn't host between St. John's or St. Thomas is going to end up at Augustana, Neb Wesleyan or the WIAC host


You can get teams to Neb Wesleyan, you just can't be very creative like say at Marietta where you can pair teams from 5 different regions, maybe 6. 

[SaintPaulite]

Looks like the Great Lakes hosts will end up being Marietta/Capital or Wabash/Wooster.  Wabash being in Western Indiana would make it a little easier but its still just out of reach for Minneapolis schools. 

More than likely the team that doesn't host between St. John's or St. Thomas is going to end up at Augustana, Neb Wesleyan or the WIAC host


You can get teams to Neb Wesleyan, you just can't be very creative like say at Marietta where you can pair teams from 5 different regions, maybe 6.

Yeah, obviously not.

I would think that a lot of teams are gonna end up in the nominally Great Lakes sites from points east.

[Gregory Sager]

Neb Wesleyan is a tough host to fix because their 500 mile radius includes relatively few options to avoid flights.  Which narrows even more if end up hosting the sweet 16 round and pretty impossible to avoid at least one flight. 


CCIW fans ought to keep in mind you can get Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton and North Central to Nebraska Wesleyan without a flight but not Elmhurst.

Barring a CCIW tourney run by the Titans or the Bluejays that culminates in a win and a CCIW tourney trophy presentation to them by outgoing league commish Chris Martin in the Carver P.E. Center in Rock Island on February 23, the distance between Bloomington and Lincoln or between Elmhurst and Lincoln won't be relevant this season.

[Gregory Sager]

How much fun would Grinnell vs. Greenville be?

Fun, but extraordinarily unlikely in March.

For the record... MIAC teams also only have to try and schedule five non-conference games and I know the coaches are thus very picky about who they want to play. They understand they need to pick power-houses so they can improve their SOS situation. Sadly, they shouldn't be playing as many conferences games, but that's a different topic for another day. They also have a lot of power-house programs not that far from them (relatively speaking). That is a compliment to the region and one MIAC teams have been, more of late, willing to take on. But that also means maybe one major road trip a year.

Williams and many in the NESCAC have to schedule a LOT more games and admittedly there is a steep decline in the quality of teams after the NESCAC and NEWMAC in New England and the greater region. While some will lament that Williams and others should schedule MORE powerhouse teams, something not considered is the costs of that. They have to schedule more major trips or tournaments as a result and that adds up financially.

I'm not defending the NESCAC, but I think a lot of people look at situations through the same prism they look at their schools or conferences. Williams has 14 non-conference games ... two of which are taken up by the Little Three ... leaving 12-non conference games. That is more than twice what MIAC teams have to contend with. So on the math that MIAC's schedule one major road trip a year (tournament, multi-day travel, or distance to play an opponent), that means Williams has to do two or more to compensate. Let's assume for a moment schools really can only afford one major trip (minority can afford two and no one is like Thomas More women this year), Williams is now in a situation where this becomes unpractical and expensive - and maybe shut down by budgets and administrators.

Just a different way of looking things from someone who has covered this sport for a long time ... and loves so many different teams and conferences in this Division.

In other words ... things aren't equal and I agree with many that NESCAC, NEWMAC, and other conferences have proven themselves despite what sometimes it looks like on paper to those looking at it through different colored glasses.

The convo has kind of moved on, but...

The lack of conference games in the NESCAC is created by the NESCAC. It's not a bug; it's a feature. If they wanted to play double round robin because it's just so hard to make a non-conference schedule, they could and they would. They don't and don't, bceause that's a problem they want. Just like the West Coast Conference in D1 dropped 2 conference games so that Gonzaga could schedule more non-conference.

As for the MIAC, I think it would be interesting if they did what Scottish soccer does: split the league. You'd play everyone once 10 games, and then the top 5 and bottom 6 split. Top 5 makes the conference tournament right then, and the bottom 6 play for the last chance spot. Details to be worked out of course, but I think the general idea makes sense.

It's an interesting idea. I like it. The problem is that it could be logistically difficult from a facilities management point of view to not know if your team will be home or away on a given league night if you have other sports that use the gym in January and February (e.g., wrestling or men's volleyball).

Well job 1 is getting teams to Nebraska Wesleyan, as it stands, and as many of the right teams as you can. Everyone east should move west that can. That's why I looked at who can get to Augustana from Indiana or Ohio...etc. Fly teams out west and fly west teams that are going to fly anyway back east to back fill. It would be a complete injustice to put Whitman, Whitworth and Pitzer in the same quad. But they did an even more stupid thing last year with Oshkosh, Wittenberg and Marietta and they weren't even forced into that.

So...yeah.

This seems to me to be the smartest way to handle it. Use two first-weekend flights to send teams from the East Coast to Walla Walla and a third to send the SCIAC rep somewhere. (Texas would be nice, if there are three teams in the field between the SCAC and ASC.) Use Capital, Wooster, and/or Marietta as funnels to draw in teams to the east of them while funneling the other Great Lakes teams westward to play @ Augie or @ UW-Oshkosh.

There's probably no way around a Bracket of Death this year, as Bob points out, but the injustice of it can be lessened if the committee is canny enough. An extra flight or two wouldn't hurt, of course, but I don't know how much budget flexibility D3 men's basketball is allowed in that regard.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

We've seen Grinnell and Greenville.  The game takes three hours, there's 80 combined turnovers and 100 FTs.*



*I may be exaggerating, but it was excruciating to watch.

[Greek Tragedy]

https://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2016-17/boxscores/20161126_ccp8.xml?view=boxscore

There was only 59 turnovers. 🤔😎😋😂

99 free throws...close. Looks like that was Greenville's fault. Grinnell went to the line 71 times. Grinnell won151-128. I think some of us were picturing each team to score 180.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There are always tricky considerations with the bracketing.  What we found out from last year was that the committee picked the sixteen best teams, according to criteria, and essentially made those the hosts and made it work.  Now, you can't always do that given the geographic and financial limitations, but it gives some insight into how they work: prioritizing the criteria.  I think that's where we'd like them to be.

The reality is, though, that one team can change things so much (and which teams submit to host).  It would be great to have a Texas orphan (or two) to play around with.  It's why I always root for Colorado College to win the SCAC tournament.  Then you've got odd possibilities - like Emory can get to Lynchburg, but not to RMC (if Emory is even in the picture this year).

Last year, doing the mock bracket, we had to basically move everyone as far East as we could get them for this same reason.  I'm not too worried about the parity just yet, although I feel like the committee needs to lay down in front of a truck to keep Whitman and Whitworth from a potential first weekend meeting this year.  We all deserve better, even if it costs $$$.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

https://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2016-17/boxscores/20161126_ccp8.xml?view=boxscore

There was only 59 turnovers. 🤔😎😋😂

99 free throws...close. Looks like that was Greenville's fault. Grinnell went to the line 71 times. Grinnell won151-128. I think some of us were picturing each team to score 180.

It perfectly illustrated what we're always saying: that The System is more about defense than offense.  A sell-out press is just simply effective at forcing turnovers, even if you practice against it everyday.  I will say, that Greenville team was very inexperienced; a matchup now would probably be a lot less sloppy.

[ronk]

There are always tricky considerations with the bracketing.  What we found out from last year was that the committee picked the sixteen best teams, according to criteria, and essentially made those the hosts and made it work.  Now, you can't always do that given the geographic and financial limitations, but it gives some insight into how they work: prioritizing the criteria.  I think that's where we'd like them to be.

The reality is, though, that one team can change things so much (and which teams submit to host).  It would be great to have a Texas orphan (or two) to play around with.  It's why I always root for Colorado College to win the SCAC tournament.  Then you've got odd possibilities - like Emory can get to Lynchburg, but not to RMC (if Emory is even in the picture this year).

Last year, doing the mock bracket, we had to basically move everyone as far East as we could get them for this same reason.  I'm not too worried about the parity just yet, although I feel like the committee needs to lay down in front of a truck to keep Whitman and Whitworth from a potential first weekend meeting this year.  We all deserve better, even if it costs $$$.

So, no more 2 from each of the 8 regions as hosts? Not protesting, just want to know the thinking before the hosts are selected.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

There are always tricky considerations with the bracketing.  What we found out from last year was that the committee picked the sixteen best teams, according to criteria, and essentially made those the hosts and made it work.  Now, you can't always do that given the geographic and financial limitations, but it gives some insight into how they work: prioritizing the criteria.  I think that's where we'd like them to be.

The reality is, though, that one team can change things so much (and which teams submit to host).  It would be great to have a Texas orphan (or two) to play around with.  It's why I always root for Colorado College to win the SCAC tournament.  Then you've got odd possibilities - like Emory can get to Lynchburg, but not to RMC (if Emory is even in the picture this year).

Last year, doing the mock bracket, we had to basically move everyone as far East as we could get them for this same reason.  I'm not too worried about the parity just yet, although I feel like the committee needs to lay down in front of a truck to keep Whitman and Whitworth from a potential first weekend meeting this year.  We all deserve better, even if it costs $$$.

So, no more 2 from each of the 8 regions as hosts? Not protesting, just want to know the thinking before the hosts are selected.

They moved away from guaranteeing two from each of the eight regions hosting several years ago. Sometimes it works out and they are conscious of the idea, but they are not slaved to it.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For the record... MIAC teams also only have to try and schedule five non-conference games and I know the coaches are thus very picky about who they want to play. They understand they need to pick power-houses so they can improve their SOS situation. Sadly, they shouldn't be playing as many conferences games, but that's a different topic for another day. They also have a lot of power-house programs not that far from them (relatively speaking). That is a compliment to the region and one MIAC teams have been, more of late, willing to take on. But that also means maybe one major road trip a year.

Williams and many in the NESCAC have to schedule a LOT more games and admittedly there is a steep decline in the quality of teams after the NESCAC and NEWMAC in New England and the greater region. While some will lament that Williams and others should schedule MORE powerhouse teams, something not considered is the costs of that. They have to schedule more major trips or tournaments as a result and that adds up financially.

I'm not defending the NESCAC, but I think a lot of people look at situations through the same prism they look at their schools or conferences. Williams has 14 non-conference games ... two of which are taken up by the Little Three ... leaving 12-non conference games. That is more than twice what MIAC teams have to contend with. So on the math that MIAC's schedule one major road trip a year (tournament, multi-day travel, or distance to play an opponent), that means Williams has to do two or more to compensate. Let's assume for a moment schools really can only afford one major trip (minority can afford two and no one is like Thomas More women this year), Williams is now in a situation where this becomes unpractical and expensive - and maybe shut down by budgets and administrators.

Just a different way of looking things from someone who has covered this sport for a long time ... and loves so many different teams and conferences in this Division.

In other words ... things aren't equal and I agree with many that NESCAC, NEWMAC, and other conferences have proven themselves despite what sometimes it looks like on paper to those looking at it through different colored glasses.

The convo has kind of moved on, but...

The lack of conference games in the NESCAC is created by the NESCAC. It's not a bug; it's a feature. If they wanted to play double round robin because it's just so hard to make a non-conference schedule, they could and they would. They don't and don't, bceause that's a problem they want. Just like the West Coast Conference in D1 dropped 2 conference games so that Gonzaga could schedule more non-conference.

If you tuned into Hoopsville when we talk to NESCAC coaches of late, a majority of the men we've talked to want to see a double-round-robin. The women has been a little more split, but we don't go as deep usually since the women's teams aren't as deep as the men's currently.

Remember, coaches don't run things as much as the presidents do in the NESCAC (i.e. football and other examples). While the coaches may end up being in favor of actually going to a double-round-robin (they actually have real fears about scheduling in a few years because of how the calendar is going to work out; two-plus weeks of basketball season before the NESCAC is allowed to start playing - weekend before Thanksgiving), but the presidents are ultimately going to have a say. So far, they have not wanted a trip to the extremes of the conference each year guarunteed. They believe that will mean lost class time and expenses they don't want to spend.

Yes, the presidents haven't seemed to see the big picture, but let's not make this a "the NESCAC wants this." It is more like a "this is how the NESCAC has done things and the presidents can't see it any other way." If the NESCAC presidents were fine with expenses and lost class time, NESCAC schools would have more than one "big" trip a year (a few do, but not consistently without a lot of alumni help) and they would most likely already playing in a double-round-robin.

It really isn't a problem "they want." As I alluded to before, coaches are worried about the schedule coming up in a few years. They aren't even allowed to start practices to Nov. 1 or play games until the weekend before Thanksgiving. In a few years, that times out to about two-plus weeks of basketball games without the NESCAC involved. The concern is most of their non-conference opponents will book up their non-conference games and not need the NESCAC to help fill. There will be, believe it or not, less teams to go around - because they certainly don't want to play just the bottom dwellers. I've heard that from multiple coaches now.

Also, the conversation about double-round-robin has been brought up, from what I can determine, at least each of the last two or three seasons in the NESCAC.

As for the MIAC, I think it would be interesting if they did what Scottish soccer does: split the league. You'd play everyone once 10 games, and then the top 5 and bottom 6 split. Top 5 makes the conference tournament right then, and the bottom 6 play for the last chance spot. Details to be worked out of course, but I think the general idea makes sense.

MIAC isn't going to split the league. They are actually going in the opposite direction. BTW - several conferences in DIII already do this. USA South and ASC off the top of my head. (NJAC used to do it.) While the ODAC doesn't split the league, they do have the same scheduling model, though they adjust who teams play each season twice and once.

The MIAC women went to the "ODAC model" for the last few years. However, starting next season they are reversing course and moving back to the double-round-robin leaving them three non-conference games, I believe (men have five non-conf games).

The MIAC and others have to consider better scheduling models to free up more non-conference games.

[sac]

As for the MIAC, I think it would be interesting if they did what Scottish soccer does: split the league. You'd play everyone once 10 games, and then the top 5 and bottom 6 split. Top 5 makes the conference tournament right then, and the bottom 6 play for the last chance spot. Details to be worked out of course, but I think the general idea makes sense.

MIAC isn't going to split the league. They are actually going in the opposite direction. BTW - several conferences in DIII already do this. USA South and ASC off the top of my head. (NJAC used to do it.) While the ODAC doesn't split the league, they do have the same scheduling model, though they adjust who teams play each season twice and once.

The MIAC women went to the "ODAC model" for the last few years. However, starting next season they are reversing course and moving back to the double-round-robin leaving them three non-conference games, I believe (men have five non-conf games).

The MIAC and others have to consider better scheduling models to free up more non-conference games.

Just FYI what the ASC and ODAC do is not the Scottish model saintpaulie is talking about.  The Scottish soccer model is a 12 team league they play 33 games, 3 against each other, after game 33 they split the league in two based on 1-6, 7-12 positions in the standings.  Those groups then play 1 game against each other.  They do this to match the 38 game schedule most of the rest of Europe's 20 team leagues follow along with allowing for more meaningful games at the end of the season.

The last 5 games of their season are open dates.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Last year, doing the mock bracket, we had to basically move everyone as far East as we could get them for this same reason.  I'm not too worried about the parity just yet, although I feel like the committee needs to lay down in front of a truck to keep Whitman and Whitworth from a potential first weekend meeting this year.  We all deserve better, even if it costs $$$.

What happens if the SCIAC also get 2 in (say PP run the table but lose in the conference final)? Do they stick the four west coast teams in a pod or split them up?

[Smitty Oom]

Should we start a gofundme.com and all proceeds go towards an extra flight for splitting up the Whits?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As for the MIAC, I think it would be interesting if they did what Scottish soccer does: split the league. You'd play everyone once 10 games, and then the top 5 and bottom 6 split. Top 5 makes the conference tournament right then, and the bottom 6 play for the last chance spot. Details to be worked out of course, but I think the general idea makes sense.

MIAC isn't going to split the league. They are actually going in the opposite direction. BTW - several conferences in DIII already do this. USA South and ASC off the top of my head. (NJAC used to do it.) While the ODAC doesn't split the league, they do have the same scheduling model, though they adjust who teams play each season twice and once.

The MIAC women went to the "ODAC model" for the last few years. However, starting next season they are reversing course and moving back to the double-round-robin leaving them three non-conference games, I believe (men have five non-conf games).

The MIAC and others have to consider better scheduling models to free up more non-conference games.

Just FYI what the ASC and ODAC do is not the Scottish model saintpaulie is talking about.  The Scottish soccer model is a 12 team league they play 33 games, 3 against each other, after game 33 they split the league in two based on 1-6, 7-12 positions in the standings.  Those groups then play 1 game against each other.  They do this to match the 38 game schedule most of the rest of Europe's 20 team leagues follow along with allowing for more meaningful games at the end of the season.

The last 5 games of their season are open dates.

I understand it isn't the Scottish model. I was trying to reference that other conferences split their divisions and double-round-robin in division and single-game the other division. The Scottish model doesn't really work over here, so I was trying to compare it to where conferences do split themselves up - though not based on standings obviously (though, the MAC does do that with their scheduling a little bit in football; top teams don't play the bottom teams based on the previous season's schedule ... though, like all good plans, I need to make sure they have stuck with the plan LOL).

Should we start a gofundme.com and all proceeds go towards an extra flight for splitting up the Whits?

If only that would work ... or would be allowed. We went through this fact with Whitworth fans last season who didn't understand they couldn't control their destiny based on how much the alumni would or wouldn't put up to ship them out.

That said ... I know the committee is fully aware of the situation. Remember, they wanted to split up the Whits last season. That was their plan all along. Two things kept that from happening: no Texas teams had put into to host; the NCAA wouldn't allow all the flights that would result form that decision. One Texas team hosts, the NCAA may have been willing to spend the money.

Who knows what's going to happen this year. I don't think the SCIAC is in position to get a second team in right now. Those SOS numbers aren't going to look great, granted the SOS to WL% comparison is taking a back seat this season which may allow poor SOS numbers to be over-looked for strong WL% numbers ...

But now I am going down the rabbit hole WAY too soon. There is a LOT of basketball still to be played that is going to have a massive say in how these things shake out.