Top 25 talk

[AndOne]

JUST ASKING

Nebraska Wesleyan lost for the first time last night.
Augustana, Oshkosh, and Whitman already had one loss.
So what makes NWU's loss any worse than those of Augie, UWO, or Whitman? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Is it "worse" just because its more recent?
If not, why doesn't NWU deserve to maintain the #1 ranking? 🤔
After all, they don't have any more losses than anybody else.

You should tune into Hoopsville tonight ... that exact same debate will be had. I suspect you may be interested in the thoughts.

Dave,

Just so you're aware, I DID watch the show tonight. Two points.............

1. With regard to my assertion NWU should still be #1——Unless I misunderstood things, you agreed with me. I'm not sure why you couldn't just say that at the time I originally posted my opinion, but I am glad you voiced your concurrence. As further evidence NWU still deserves the #1 spot I would add that not only do they not have any more losses than Augie, Oshkosh, or Whitman, is that they have a higher SOS. So they have the same number of losses (1) as the other teams against a tougher overall schedule. 🤔

2. You stated you favor giving teams a "mulligan." However, you have a good degree of trepidation about 17-3 North Central belonging in the Top 25 mainly because of their two point loss to 4 win Ohio Northern in Las Vegas. However, you know NCC lost both their starting senior center (Bronec), and their starting senior point guard (Chang) to season and career ending injuries.
But it appears you forgot that it was only NCC's third game since losing Chang, and their first game since losing Bronec. It would seem that "mulligan" should include consideration of the fact they were naturally still adjusting to playing without the 2 senior starters. Their only loss since had been to one loss and possible new #1 Augustana. 😏

[SaintPaulite]

JUST ASKING

Nebraska Wesleyan lost for the first time last night.
Augustana, Oshkosh, and Whitman already had one loss.
So what makes NWU's loss any worse than those of Augie, UWO, or Whitman? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Is it "worse" just because its more recent?
If not, why doesn't NWU deserve to maintain the #1 ranking? 🤔
After all, they don't have any more losses than anybody else.

You should tune into Hoopsville tonight ... that exact same debate will be had. I suspect you may be interested in the thoughts.

Dave,

Just so you're aware, I DID watch the show tonight. Two points.............

1. With regard to my assertion NWU should still be #1——Unless I misunderstood things, you agreed with me. I'm not sure why you couldn't just say that at the time I originally posted my opinion, but I am glad you voiced your concurrence. As further evidence NWU still deserves the #1 spot I would add that not only do they not have any more losses than Augie, Oshkosh, or Whitman, is that they have a higher SOS. So they have the same number of losses (1) as the other teams against a tougher overall schedule. 🤔

2. You stated you favor giving teams a "mulligan." However, you have a good degree of trepidation about 17-3 North Central belonging in the Top 25 mainly because of their two point loss to 4 win Ohio Northern in Las Vegas. However, you know NCC lost both their starting senior center (Bronec), and their starting senior point guard (Chang) to season and career ending injuries.
But it appears you forgot that it was only NCC's third game since losing Chang, and their first game since losing Bronec. It would seem that "mulligan" should include consideration of the fact they were naturally still adjusting to playing without the 2 senior starters. Their only loss since had been to one loss and possible new #1 Augustana. 😏

Yeah, the mulligan thing is pretty problematic. I said it mockingly, having no idea that people were actually going to find validity in it.

What's a mulligan game vs. just a loss to a good team? Does home/road make a difference? Time of year? Or is a mulligan game just whatever someone wants it to be? Do you get more credit if you haven't used your mulligan?

Judging teams by losses rather than wins is probably fraught with peril anyway.

This is the same as downing Whitman while crediting Augustana for a close win. The inconsistency that several respected people have shown today is really pretty shocking to me. I...didn't expect that.

[TheOsprey]

 Whitworth gave up less points @ home, than both the Tommies and Johnnies did against a common opponent.   They also lost this past weekend to a lesser team as did the above squads.
Using the past two games for points allowed and fg % allowed are skewed by an opponent that runs the system is not even a fair assessment.   They played their starters less than half the game against Pacific.   

[TheOsprey]

I agree with D-Mac on Whitworth.   I'd put their starting five up against any other first string.  They should have beat Whitman and if it wasn't for the lame NCAA budget; the Pirates would have done some damage the past few years.  Last year, they got beat by a more veteran team. 

Whitman is the best team I've watched play this year,  however,  Augie has been my favorite for the past two years and I'm sticking with them.

Just my two cents.😌

Then why has Whitworth lost 3? Well we know the reason -- defense. They gave up 202 points in two regulation games this weekend. They give up 46% from the field for the season and they don't have a great turnover ratio. They gave up 88, 100, and 95 in their losses.

If they don't win at Whitman this week, they may start to be a bubble team to even make the field. They'd be another non-Whitman loss away from being in real jeopardy.

And IF they do best their archrivals this week on the road, then the disagreement lessens. 

[SaintPaulite]

I agree with D-Mac on Whitworth.   I'd put their starting five up against any other first string.  They should have beat Whitman and if it wasn't for the lame NCAA budget; the Pirates would have done some damage the past few years.  Last year, they got beat by a more veteran team. 

Whitman is the best team I've watched play this year,  however,  Augie has been my favorite for the past two years and I'm sticking with them.

Just my two cents.😌

Then why has Whitworth lost 3? Well we know the reason -- defense. They gave up 202 points in two regulation games this weekend. They give up 46% from the field for the season and they don't have a great turnover ratio. They gave up 88, 100, and 95 in their losses.

If they don't win at Whitman this week, they may start to be a bubble team to even make the field. They'd be another non-Whitman loss away from being in real jeopardy.

And IF they do best their archrivals this week on the road, then the disagreement lessens.

Absolutely. If they beat Whitman, it would be hard for them to play their way out.

[TheOsprey]

Still alot of games to go and the regional rankings will be out soon.  Then, the real arguments begin.

[SaintPaulite]

Whitworth gave up less points @ home, than both the Tommies and Johnnies did against a common opponent.   They also lost this past weekend to a lesser team as did the above squads.
Using the past two games for points allowed and fg % allowed are skewed by an opponent that runs the system is not even a fair assessment.   They played their starters less than half the game against Pacific.

That FG% allowed was a season number. Oh they were way above that this weekend.

Only on this board could someone argue that winning by 20 is better than winning by 26 or 27. And how much did St. Thomas and St. Johns play their starters in that game? I don't know, and I don't care.

Unless they win at Whitman, top 10 seems like a real stretch. If they do win, it's still overlooking more than is overlooked for most teams to put them in the top 10, more than has been overlooked for Pomona.

[CMSfan]

I don't see a top-10 case for Whitworth at this point. I've watched a couple of their games and, yeah, they're good, but they lack depth and consistency. They've lost to UT Dallas and Willamette and I'm not seeing any signature wins. They played Whitman tough at home, but a) rivalry game; b) that game was UGLY all around; c) lol at folks saying they should have beat Whitman or considering that result a tie.

If they can go to Whitman on Tuesday and win, I'll eat my words. More likely, they end up with two more losses to Whitman and if they end up with five losses and no impressive wins, I'm not sure they make the tournament.

[Gregory Sager]

Nescac year in and year out proves that it is a top-4 conference nationally. Saying it's a decent conference is like saying CCIW is a decent conference, nothing more.  That's just silly.  Other than WIAC there is no league in D3 clearly better than Nescac from year to year.  Certainly not MIAC which is typically very top-heavy.

O rly? (not that I ever said the MIAC was top anything)
Per Massey:
2019 -- WIAC 1, NESCAC 5, MIAC 10; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2018 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 5, NESCAC 6; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2017 -- WIAC 1, NESCAC 2, MIAC 6; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2016 -- MIAC 3, WIAC 4, NESCAC 5; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2015 -- WIAC 2, MIAC 5, NESCAC 6; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2014 -- WIAC 3, NESCAC 4, MIAC 29; lowest SOS rank -- MIAC
2013 -- WIAC 1, NESCAC 8, MIAC 10; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2012 -- WIAC 1, NESCAC 10, MIAC 16; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2011 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 2, NESCAC 3; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2010 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 2, NESCAC 14; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2009 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 7, NESCAC 14; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2008 -- NESCAC 3, WIAC 4, MIAC 13; lowest SOS rank -- MIAC
2007 -- WIAC 2, NESCAC 8, MIAC 13; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2006 -- WIAC 2, NESCAC 7, MIAC 17; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2005 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 9, NESCAC 21; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2004 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 6, NESCAC 16; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC
2003 -- WIAC 1, MIAC 3, NESCAC 17; lowest SOS rank -- NESCAC

Without getting ridiculously specific, that looks an awful lot like WIAC *well* better than both, year in, year out, and the MIAC and NESCAC off and on with neither really consistently in the top 4. I imagine the CCIW is the only other league that is *consistently* among the top 4 leagues.

And as I said before, the NESCAC fattens up their NCAA SOS artificially in a way that the NCAA doesn't detect, but Massey does.

Obviously, fantastic50's ranking system does as well, as he's deviated from NCAA SOS in several places in his top 25.

I agree with your thesis that the NESCAC benefits from playing a single round-robin, as I've been posting that here for years. But your use of Massey to hold up the MIAC as an alternative is flawed, because the MIAC also benefits from skewed scheduling. Your league is so big that its members can only play five non-conference games apiece (for a total of 55) while maintaining a double round-robin schedule. I don't disagree with the double round-robin; it's the only fair and honest way to determine a champ as far as I'm concerned, with everybody playing everybody else both home and away, and with no dodging of a return game against any of the other teams. But most of the other leagues in D3 play nine or eleven non-conference games apiece, so non-conference games (i.e., the games that provide Ken Massey's statistical program with its ability to cross-reference data across league boundaries) are a far greater proportion of the schedule for power conferences such as the WIAC, the CCIW, and the UAA than they are for the MIAC.

Compounding that is the issue of the MIAC"s relative isolation on the D3 map. Since Minnesota has no D3 schools to the north or to the west, MIAC teams are somewhat restricted by financial and classroom issues in terms of who they can play in non-conference games. As a result, MIAC teams end up playing a disproportionate number of non-con games against the UMAC, a weak league by D3 standards that happens to share the same footprint as the MIAC. This season, 20 of the 55 MIAC non-con contests (37% of the total) were crossovers with the UMAC.

Massey's not a perfect system as far as D3 men's basketball is concerned, and the MIAC is one of the leagues that gets distorted in terms of Massey's data set.

[CMSfan]

They should have beat Whitman and if it wasn't for the lame NCAA budget; the Pirates would have done some damage the past few years.  Last year, they got beat by a more veteran team. 

You're blaming the NCAA budget for Whitworth losing to CMS two consecutive years?

[Gregory Sager]

2. You stated you favor giving teams a "mulligan." However, you have a good degree of trepidation about 17-3 North Central belonging in the Top 25 mainly because of their two point loss to 4 win Ohio Northern in Las Vegas. However, you know NCC lost both their starting senior center (Bronec), and their starting senior point guard (Chang) to season and career ending injuries.
But it appears you forgot that it was only NCC's third game since losing Chang, and their first game since losing Bronec. It would seem that "mulligan" should include consideration of the fact they were naturally still adjusting to playing without the 2 senior starters. Their only loss since had been to one loss and possible new #1 Augustana. 😏

I'm never quite sure that you really get the point of the Top 25 poll, Mark. We went through this whole injury discussion with you two years ago when Connor Raridon got hurt. I don't think that you got it then, and I'm still not convinced that you get it now. The point of the Top 25 poll is to show how teams rank by their relative strength, as estimated by the pollsters. In other words, a team doesn't get extra credit for overcoming obstacles, whether perceived or real. The poll is simply an even-up judgment upon the collective competence of whatever players the coach is putting on the floor. Insinuating that NCC's loss of two role players -- because, starters or not, that's what Chang and Bronec were, role players who averaged only 43 mpg between the two of them and whose collective numbers added up to about ten points and six rebounds per game -- should allow the Cardinals to get a mulligan for losing to a bad Ohio Northern team, on the basis of a hypothesis that the Cardinals hadn't had enough time to adjust to a reconfigured rotation, is specious reasoning. Dave was in Vegas, remember; he called the game in which NCC eviscerated Husson (11-8) by 42 points the day before the Cardinals played ONU (4-15), and he called that Cardinals vs. Polar Bears game as well. And the guy who has picked up more of those missing 42 mpg than anybody else, Aaron Jones, went off for 18 points in 22 minutes against Husson (a game in which the end of the NCC bench got a full five minutes of garbage time, thereby taking away more minutes and points from Jones).

Whether they're on target or not, the pollsters have judged the Cardinals for who and what they are, not for who and what they used to be or could've been under happier circumstances. Besides, when the Cards were at full strength, they suffered an equally bad loss to another four-win team, North Park -- in fact, that was an arguably worse loss than the Vegas loss to the Polar Bears, because it didn't go down to the wire like the ONU game did and it occurred on North Central's home floor. Clearly, Chang and Bronec were not proof against mulligan-worthy losses.

Remember, I'm not trying to run down the Cardinals in this conversation. I know that Dave isn't sold on the Cardinals, but I am. I'm someone who has been advocating for North Central to be ranked since before the last poll, because my observation of D3 webcasts from across the country leads me to believe that there aren't 25 better teams in D3 than NCC. This is simply a matter of you picking the wrong argument on their behalf.

[Titan Q]

I don't know how to respond inline here, but whoa wait a minute here.

Didn't you say you give everyone a mulligan? I have no idea how that works (how do you decide what's a mulligan, what's a loss to a good team, etc.), but then you're dinging Whitman for a *win*?  I feel like that's a foul for holding...a double standard. Did you scrutinize Augustana against *Carthage* the same way? I mean come on, please tell me that's not the basis for actual voting in the top 25. I would lose quite a bit of respect for the top 25 if that was the case.

No, I didn't ding Whitman at all for beating IWU in a close game.  I simply said Augustana and NWU can guard them better than IWU did.

No, you did. You downed them for winning a close game, then out the other side of your mouth gave Augustana credit for winning close games.

It's pure CCIW bias. At least you're not hiding it.

Here is what I said:

"I think Whitman is a great team but I think there is clear separation between the Blues and Augustana/NWU.  Their full-court pressure defense is very unique and super effective, but good teams are going to get so many easy baskets off of it.  I watched Whitman and Illinois Wesleyan play on a neutral court...a game Whitman one by 2 by hitting a 3 with 24 seconds to play.  The stops IWU needed to get down the stretch...I think Augie and NWU get more than enough of those throughout the game to win comfortably."

You are reading something into my statement that I did not intend.  My point is simply that Whitman gives up a ton of easy baskets because of how they play (full court trapping defense).  So it comes down to an opponent being able to stop them enough.  IWU was not able to.  I believe Augustana and NWU can based on their personnel and defensive schemes.  That's all.

As far as CCIW bias, my voting in the D3hoops.com Top 25 has never reflected CCIW bias.  Those who see my ballot each week could tell you that.  Two votes ago I had just one CCIW team on my ballot.

[Titan Q]

Yeah, the mulligan thing is pretty problematic. I said it mockingly, having no idea that people were actually going to find validity in it.

What's a mulligan game vs. just a loss to a good team? Does home/road make a difference? Time of year? Or is a mulligan game just whatever someone wants it to be? Do you get more credit if you haven't used your mulligan?

Judging teams by losses rather than wins is probably fraught with peril anyway.

This is the same as downing Whitman while crediting Augustana for a close win. The inconsistency that several respected people have shown today is really pretty shocking to me. I...didn't expect that.

What I have found from voting in a poll many years is that, late in the season, you drive yourself crazy trying to interpret the complete anomaly games - like North Central losing at home to North Park.  You need to be able to dig into these games and kind of figure out what happened and why.  And sometimes the answer is that a Top 25-caliber team really stunk up the gym.  Or a below average team really played out of their minds.  It's basketball...it happens.

I have found that voters often overreact to these types of games...and that the computer polls do a much better job with them, by just simply counting the data from these games and not overreacting to the "bad loss" or "bad game."  So this is simply my way to trying to look at the big picture and making sense of it.

The D3hoops.com Top 25 is not a computer poll.  It's a poll voted on by humans.  So that brings in some human interpretations in the effort to determine what the right order is for the Top 25.  We all do our best, and work extremely hard, to evaluate teams as best we can.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Reading over the whole thread this morning, two things I want to bring up:

First, the only definitive data we really ever have for comparing two teams in a head-to-head match-up.  Things like common opponents give us good data, but it's far from definitive for anything.  The same goes for whatever formulas the various statistical rankings use to rank teams.  That doesn't make them wrong.  It might even (and often does) make them better than the human rankings, but none of it is really definitive.

Even when teams play each other, the small sample size doesn't actually prove anything other than who scored more points on a given night.

I don't do this religiously, but when ranking, I tend to look at good wins, acceptable losses, and head-scratchers (which includes both close wins over inferior teams and losses that don't make sense) and try to balance those factors with what I've seen on video.  Sometimes that means a team like IWU, which should be better, just isn't, and it takes me longer to drop them.

Second,

Per Bob's comment on Whitman - I wonder if Whitworth is able to hang with them because Whitworth has a talented team that generally protects the ball well.  Teams with a strong offense can often hang with Whitman, because the press provides a few open baskets.  I actually believe Whitman would do better against those teams in a half-court set, because Whitman does really have a very strong half-court defense.

They don't have the same number of losses, but I wonder if Whitworth is more in the IWU camp (talent without consistent results) than in the Top Ten discussion.  They have the talent for it, but there isn't a great schedules to give us the kind of evidence that would make me more comfortable understanding who they are.

I've still got them pretty high up, but now I'm wondering if even a good performance against Whitman this week should be enough to solidify the position.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

JUST ASKING

Nebraska Wesleyan lost for the first time last night.
Augustana, Oshkosh, and Whitman already had one loss.
So what makes NWU's loss any worse than those of Augie, UWO, or Whitman? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Is it "worse" just because its more recent?
If not, why doesn't NWU deserve to maintain the #1 ranking? 🤔
After all, they don't have any more losses than anybody else.

You should tune into Hoopsville tonight ... that exact same debate will be had. I suspect you may be interested in the thoughts.

Dave,

Just so you're aware, I DID watch the show tonight. Two points.............

1. With regard to my assertion NWU should still be #1——Unless I misunderstood things, you agreed with me. I'm not sure why you couldn't just say that at the time I originally posted my opinion, but I am glad you voiced your concurrence. As further evidence NWU still deserves the #1 spot I would add that not only do they not have any more losses than Augie, Oshkosh, or Whitman, is that they have a higher SOS. So they have the same number of losses (1) as the other teams against a tougher overall schedule. 🤔

I didn't say it when you originally posted it ... because I want people to tune into the show. I would like to drive viewership if at all possible. The more watch, the better chance I have at getting advertisers interested in joining the program.

BTW - which SOS are you using? I eyeball the SOS until about this point in the season when I start to take the NCAA number a little more seriously and will glance at Massey to be sure I'm not missing someone or something.

The NCAA SOS is way out of balance until about this time of the season because of the number of conference games that have not been played. That is one of the biggest reasons questions about one earlier set of regional rankings has always been met with "the data would give us some really out-of-whack results." Something that holds up when the first regional rankings are out and some teams never are seen after that point.

And I think the flaws with Massey aren't tamped down by other results enough until this point of the season along with the conference games not allowing it's numbers to adjust either.

2. You stated you favor giving teams a "mulligan." However, you have a good degree of trepidation about 17-3 North Central belonging in the Top 25 mainly because of their two point loss to 4 win Ohio Northern in Las Vegas. However, you know NCC lost both their starting senior center (Bronec), and their starting senior point guard (Chang) to season and career ending injuries.
But it appears you forgot that it was only NCC's third game since losing Chang, and their first game since losing Bronec. It would seem that "mulligan" should include consideration of the fact they were naturally still adjusting to playing without the 2 senior starters. Their only loss since had been to one loss and possible new #1 Augustana. 😏

As has been pointed out, I am fully aware of where North Central was when I saw them in Vegas. It wasn't that hard to see Chang scooting along behind the bench - something we made light of during both games they played. Furthermore, I saw them dismantle Husson and then get dismantled by Ohio Northern. That causes more questions than answers.

But if we are talking mulligans, why are you stuck on the ONU result? If you want me to mulligan the ONU result, then I guess I should lean hard on the North Park result. There are TWO games for North Central that give me pause and if I were to mulligan just one, which one do you want me to do that? So, I mulligan North Park when they were basically at full strength? Or should I ignore that result and focus on the ones that have the roster they currently have at their disposal.

And while I understand your argument about they weren't at full-strength and still adjusting, the problem with that is they eviscerated Husson the night before. Husson v ONU might have been a draw. If the results had been in reverse, then I might buy into the argument a bit more.