Top 25 talk

[Titan Q]

1) There is a huge difference between 7 CCIW teams being ranked and 7 CCIW teams getting votes.  Right now there are 3 CCIW teams in the D3hoops.com Top 25.

2) Conference play will sort all of this out.


(Illinois Wesleyan was not on my ballot this week, by the way.)

[sac]

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Doesn't this theory contradict the idea that there is no CCIW bias then?.  That pollsters feel the need to slot in a 3rd or 4th CCIW team into the top 25 just because they are from the CCIW?  I've fallen into this trap myself on my fan polls and it never feels genuine.  By the way, I have no conclusion myself that there is a CCIW bias, only a slant and this opinion has been expressed by others privately.  There are reasons for that, an argument for another day.  

d) That intimidating non-con record. The CCIW as a whole is going to break its all-time record this season for winning percentage outside of the circuit; it's currently an eye-popping 70-17 (.805) with one game left (next Monday's Millikin @ Knox contest). It's obviously a league loaded with great teams this season; who wants to guess wrong as to which of them is nationally legit and which one of them is as hollow as a chocolate soldier? Or, indeed, if any of them at all are hollow?

I think that what we're seeing is a cautious group of pollsters who haven't really received enough information yet to sort out who is a contender and who is a pretender in the CCIW.

That record might look impressive but I believe 6 CCIW teams played a non-conference record vs collectively sub .500 teams.  (at least thats true for D3 opponents).   I don't know whether thats good or bad or average for the rest of D3.  I tend to think its probably the average.  Yes, there have been some great matchups with WashU and WIAC foes, but those are out numbered by some pretty downrite weak D3 teams.

I do think that in most years the CCIW gets the large box of cupcakes to feast on and this year is no different.


.......as for cautionary pollsters, if they were really cautionary I don't think we'd see so many CCIW teams getting votes.

So, the two close road losses to Wash U. and Wheaton mean nothing as well? Are Wheaton and Wash U. overrated also?

Possibly, Washington's resume to date isn't eye popping   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WSHU/mens/2009   , its probably enough to keep the defending National Champion hovering around the top 5 though.

Wheaton's isn't overwhelming either   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WTIL/mens/2009  .  But they are unbeaten.  I do wonder where they'd be ranked if they hadn't made the NCAA's last year though.

Illinois Wesleayn   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/IWU/mens/2009  where is the quality win that justifies voting a 5 loss team in the top 25?  They were on the edge last week and I suppose I can see why, at some point you can't keep voting for a team just because they've lost a bunch of close one's.


Take a look at the differences between how IWU/Elmhurst and Anderson (also w/close losses) have been handled in the poll this year and you'll see what I mean about there being a slant toward CCIW teams.
-------------------------------------------------------


Lastly, I like debates like this guys, this boards been pretty quiet for a long time.  Some very good well thought out posts today.  I'm just trying to get a handle on what the pollsters are thinking.   I just see alot that doesn't make alot of sense.

[sac]

1) There is a huge difference between 7 CCIW teams being ranked and 7 CCIW teams getting votes.  Right now there are 3 CCIW teams in the D3hoops.com Top 25.

I think its fair to ask why, or to wonder what the rationale was when 3 of the 7 don't appear to merit a vote.

I'd like to think I'd be asking the same questions if it were the WIAC, the UAA  (infact I know I've questioned that before) or the MIAA.

[Ralph Turner]

Anderson 84 Texas Lutheran 79 did not impress me at all.  (I listened to that game!  I thought Anderson had been stung by the Seguin, TX referees! 24 Personal Fouls in Seguin TX (versus 29 for TLU) is not bad!    )

Anderson 93 HPU 78 was more appropriate.  However, Anderson only went 7 deep in the game?  Ty Riddle killed HPU (9-14 on 3FG's)!

Parity!  There is so little difference between #20 and #80 that I am glad that we have a playoff!  

[Titan Q]

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Greg, I think you mean the Gordan Mann theory...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/01/01/happy-new-season/

[Titan Q]

I think its fair to ask why, or to wonder what the rationale was when 3 of the 7 don't appear to merit a vote.

Absolutely it's fair.  It makes for good discussion.  I guess I'm just reminding everyone to keep in perspective how few voting points Illinois Wesleyan - 8, Millikin - 7, and North Central - 5 really have.  They are nowhere near the Top 25.

[HopeConvert]

#19  Elmhurst

I'm sorry man, but any other team from any other conference that loses 3 in a row drops out of the poll.  This is quite ridiculous imo.    That isn't even taking into account being ranked ahead of Anderson, who just beat them 10 days ago.

6 teams from one conference receiving top 25 votes. 

I am guessing voters still don't know what to do with the fact that Elmhurst is the only team to beat Wash U, and Wash U is ranked #3 and are the defending national champs who should theoretically be at least as good this year.

Not without Ruths they're not. I still think they are a dangerous team, but he was something special.

[sac]

  I guess I'm just reminding everyone to keep in perspective how few voting points Illinois Wesleyan - 8, Millikin - 7, and North Central - 5 really have.  They are nowhere near the Top 25.

7 of the top 41 is still alot.

[Titan Q]

#19  Elmhurst

I'm sorry man, but any other team from any other conference that loses 3 in a row drops out of the poll.  This is quite ridiculous imo.   

I do not agree with this logic.

Elmhurst was ranked #10 in Week 5 collectively by the voters.  And the Wash U win and the Anderson loss had been factored in by this time.  This week the voters had two pieces of data to base their new Elmhurst decision on:

1) A 1-point loss @ #7 Augustana .

2) A double overtime loss to 10-2 Millikin.

If you have Elmhurst #10, you cannot "penalize" them for losing by 1 @ #7.  If anything, that is game that justifies where they are ranked relative to Augustana.  It was a "good loss" - I sure hope the voters don't automatically penalize a team when they see an "L."

So then you're left to deal with the "bad loss" at home to Millikin.  Elmhurst dropped 10 spots, to #20.  That seems very fair to me.

Each week as a voter you deal with the new data you have.

[sciacguru]

By the way, Carthage just beat the #7 team in the county!

I saw Carthage play. Cal Lutheran manhandled them and won easily. Carthage was wholly ordinary. If the Red Men beat the so-called "#7 team in the county!" then the CCIW is even more overrated than I already knew.

Let me know the next time Cal Lutheran comes to the midwest and manhandles a CCIW team!  From looking at this year's roster, that's the same CLU team minus its leading scorer from a year ago that beat my 10-15 cardinals last year in overtime.  It took a game tying three pointer to force the overtime by the way!  Did I mention NCC was without its best player at the time.  So, spare me the overrated comments!

Bob,
I watched the Cal LU/Carthage game online.  Maybe if Cal Lu came east of vegas the rest of the country would see how good they are or aren't!

Same roster???
Looks like CLU's roster had quite the turnaround, with 6 freshmen on the team, 2 which start.  Only 2 starters returning (Meier, Knudsen), only 3 with significant playing experience.....with Fisher.  Meier was the leading scorer last year...he has returned.  CLU lost 3 Seniors (2, 3yr starters and solid utility player), another starter (6-6 manchild Owens), and backup PG (Gums) as well as 4 or 5 others.
This year's stats:
http://www.clusports.com/stats/mens_basketball/2008_2009/teamcume.htm

Last year's stats and team:
http://www.clusports.com/stats/mens_basketball/2007_2008/teamcume.htm#TEAM.IND


If you saw the game online....pass it on to your fellow CCIW'ers...or is there no internet in Illinois?  Here is the link:
http://kadytv.com/CLU/clu_ibn.htm

[HopeConvert]

1) There is a huge difference between 7 CCIW teams being ranked and 7 CCIW teams getting votes.  Right now there are 3 CCIW teams in the D3hoops.com Top 25.

I think its fair to ask why, or to wonder what the rationale was when 3 of the 7 don't appear to merit a vote.

I'd like to think I'd be asking the same questions if it were the WIAC, the UAA  (infact I know I've questioned that before) or the MIAA.

Given the CCIW's non-conference record I think some deference is due to the conference. Obviously they are going to be beating up on each other quite a bit. I can't say I was too troubled by the votes.

[Gregory Sager]

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Doesn't this theory contradict the idea that there is no CCIW bias then?.  That pollsters feel the need to slot in a 3rd or 4th CCIW team into the top 25 just because they are from the CCIW?

No, the pollsters feel the need to slot in a third or fourth CCIW team because the league has a 70-17 non-con record this season, not because the league is inherently better than every other league in the nation. I think it's a universally-accepted axiom that the WIAC is at least as good, if not better, than the CCIW, and that the UAA has been at peer level with the CCIW over the past few seasons. In other words, teams get a nod because their league happens to have a supersized non-con record, not because their league happens to be the CCIW.

That record might look impressive but I believe 6 CCIW teams played a non-conference record vs collectively sub .500 teams.  (at least thats true for D3 opponents).   I don't know whether thats good or bad or average for the rest of D3.  I tend to think its probably the average.  Yes, there have been some great matchups with WashU and WIAC foes, but those are out numbered by some pretty downrite weak D3 teams.

I do think that in most years the CCIW gets the large box of cupcakes to feast on and this year is no different.

I haven't crunched the numbers to look at the strength of schedule of the eight CCIW teams. Perhaps that 70-17 was achieved against a collective sub-.500 opponent base, perhaps it wasn't. But are you taking the games against the CCIW teams out of those opponent's records? It's customary to do so when you measure strength of schedule. And, yeah, the CCIW has played lots of weak teams. It's also played lots of strong teams. That's true every year, and it's true of every league. What's remarkable about this season's success is that the CCIW really hasn't played a non-con schedule that's drastically different from past years.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that "most years the CCIW gets the large box of cupcakes to feast on and this year is no different." The Midwest Region is generally acknowledged to be one of the two or three best regions in D3, and the best element of the West Region by far -- the WIAC -- is right on the CCIW's doorstep and plays a number of games against the CCIW each season. The two UAA programs that have been the strongest throughout this decade, Chicago and Wash U, are in close proximity to the CCIW and play a bunch of games against CCIW teams every season. The MWC is generally acknowledged as one of the up-and-coming leagues within D3. And it's not as though the CCIW is annually scheduling games with the bottom-feeders in your league; the four games that the CCIW are guaranteed to play each year against the MIAA are all against Hope and Calvin. And so on, and so forth.

.......as for cautionary pollsters, if they were really cautionary I don't think we'd see so many CCIW teams getting votes.

I think that the opposite is true. Who wants to be the pollster who gets blind-sided by not seeing the team that emerges as the CCIW kingpin at the same time that his pollster peers have spotted it?

So, the two close road losses to Wash U. and Wheaton mean nothing as well? Are Wheaton and Wash U. overrated also?

Possibly, Washington's resume to date isn't eye popping   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WSHU/mens/2009   , its probably enough to keep the defending National Champion hovering around the top 5 though.

Wheaton's isn't overwhelming either   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WTIL/mens/2009  .  But they are unbeaten.  I do wonder where they'd be ranked if they hadn't made the NCAA's last year though.

Illinois Wesleayn   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/IWU/mens/2009  where is the quality win that justifies voting a 5 loss team in the top 25?  They were on the edge last week and I suppose I can see why, at some point you can't keep voting for a team just because they've lost a bunch of close one's.

I think that if you try hard enough you can find something to dislike about every D3 team's resume. If I had to single out one CCIW team that I really think is getting too much of the benefit of the doubt, though, it would probably be IWU -- although I think that Millikin and North Central have fairly dubious cases as well.

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Greg, I think you mean the Gordan Mann theory...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/01/01/happy-new-season/

Could be, although I don't remember reading that blog piece. Perhaps D-Mac picked up the gist of it and recited it somewhere where I remember reading it.

At any rate, sorry for the lack of attribution, Gordo.

[Gregory Sager]

If you saw the game online....pass it on to your fellow CCIW'ers...or is there no internet in Illinois?

No, there isn't. Somebody in another state is reading all of this to me over the phone, and then typing away furiously while I dictate my voluminous responses to him.

[sciacguru]

But I had mentioned something along these lines last year:
Sorry my quote inserts are still amateurish!!!

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2008, 11:10:21 pm
Quote from: OxyBob on February 04, 2008, 10:13:28 pm
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 04, 2008, 10:06:06 pm
Oxy re-enters the poll (at #20!), and OB is still bitchin'!

Yeah, and Oxy only had to win 15 out of 16 to do it.

OxyBob


Also known as six out of seven.

Oxy has to win 15 of 16, or 6 of 7, or 6 in a row to break Top 20.  When they were top 25 before, they lose one game 3 wks ago, the conference opener, at a tough venue in CMS, and cant seem to get back in  til now.  Doesnt seem to be the norm when you lose....................

Wheaton loses 4 of last 7 - Now out of Top 25
Elmhurst loses 4 of last 7  - Just hanging on to 25
UW-Oshkosh loses 4 of last 8 - Sitting at 24 (now they did lose to Top 25 teams)

except.......
Williams loses 3 in a row - Out from #13 (only one I 100% agree with)

[Ralph Turner]

If you saw the game online....pass it on to your fellow CCIW'ers...or is there no internet in Illinois?

No, there isn't. Somebody in another state is reading all of this to me over the phone, and then typing away furiously while I dictate my voluminous responses to him.

Yeah, there is internet in Illinois.  I have used it there.

I actually think that Gregory has access to an out-of-work medical transcriptionist sitting at a word processor in India, and he is using her to do the typing!