Top 25 talk

[D3HoopJunkie]

Pat, Dave or Anyone who may know,

I'm curious as to what the exact requirements are for a school to host a weekend of the NCAA tournament???  Obviously seating capacity of the gym, parking, approved hotels and so on are all factor but can someone elaborate for me with specific details. Maybe there is a link someone can attach? As an Albertus supporter I'm obviously intrigued. I know our gym is small but can we bring in bleachers and throw them on the end lines lol (they have done this for the GNAC tourney) Maybe setup some makeshift seating to help us get to whatever number it may be!!!

If we are fortunate enough to get to the tourney it would be awesome to somehow host a pod. I know it's unlikely we host but I can dream right!!!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Usually 1,000 is the minimum for seating. (From the manual: " To host sectional competition, arena seating for at least 1,000 spectators is required." That indicates for sectionals, not the first weekend, but the NCAA still wants 1,000 seats and I can't remember any time a site with 600 or even 800 has hosted anything but a single game.)

As has been discussed in previous years... and as it seems has been indicated by the NCAA in previous years... AMC does not have the seating capacity to host NCAA tournament games for an entire weekend. The best they could expect is a first-round bye game (where they host the Thursday game and the winner takes on the team with the first-round bye), but if they are regionally ranked high then that won't happen. They could also maybe get a first round bye and host the second round game, but again... with a capacity of just 600 for basketball games... that just isn't enough in the eyes of the NCAA to host a game.

Unless AMC finds another facility in the area to host the games... don't expect to see AMC with any games at their place (and be pleasantly surprised if they get one).

[smedindy]

Shocked I am that a Wooster fan is braying about being disrespected. Maybe they should stick to complaining about announcers or thuggish opponents! 

Seriously, win the league, do well in the tourney. The rest takes care of itself.

I don't think there's any voter who doesn't know the depth and breadth of Wooster's history. In fact, I personally think all pollsters think too much on reputation and not enough on the results. But I know it's hard to separate wheat from chaff even using Massey or other power rankings.

[Pat Coleman]

I think it's also easier to rank a CCIW team higher early because we all know their conference schedule will wring the truth out of the situation.

Actually, Hoops Fan hits on something key here. This is definitely true, at least in my mind. I am hesitant to highly rank early in the season a team who plays nobody, because I may not get any corroborating evidence until March, when it's too late. Someone in the WIAC or CCIW or ODAC or NESCAC will get that test sooner rather than later.

If you're someone like Albertus Magnus, I'm waiting until you play and beat somebody who is on my ballot or near my ballot before I put you anywhere above something like 12-15.

[sac]

When Augustana won its opener to Albion(now 8-3) by 4 the poll was characterized as being "off" and suggestions that Augustana was overrated.  The idea that their poll ranking can only be validated by beating only CCIW or other highly ranked opponents like Whitewater is very frustrating.

I've watched  Albion live and they're very good and beat a CCIW by 8 that has 2 losses.  Yet nothing.

[Pat Coleman]

When Augustana won its opener to Albion(now 8-3) by 4 the poll was characterized as being "off" and suggestions that Augustana was overrated.  The idea that their poll ranking can only be validated by beating only CCIW or other highly ranked opponents like Whitewater is very frustrating.

I've watched  Albion live and they're very good and beat a CCIW by 8 that has 2 losses.  Yet nothing.

I kind of figured you might respond as such. That's why I specifically said a team like Albertus Magnus, which plays in one of the worst conferences in Division III.

I don't lump the MIAA in with those leagues. Should I?

[sac]

When Augustana won its opener to Albion(now 8-3) by 4 the poll was characterized as being "off" and suggestions that Augustana was overrated.  The idea that their poll ranking can only be validated by beating only CCIW or other highly ranked opponents like Whitewater is very frustrating.

I've watched  Albion live and they're very good and beat a CCIW by 8 that has 2 losses.  Yet nothing.

I kind of figured you might respond as such. That's why I specifically said a team like Albertus Magnus, which plays in one of the worst conferences in Division III.

I don't lump the MIAA in with those leagues. Should I?

No but it doesn't change the fact that I should feel some frustration at the poll dynamics just because you specifically chose to avoid a topic because you fear my wrath.

Its just frustrating to see repeated year after year deferential treatment to teams from specific conferences when teams from others seem to have to walk on water to get even a morsel of recognition.

[Pat Coleman]

When Augustana won its opener to Albion(now 8-3) by 4 the poll was characterized as being "off" and suggestions that Augustana was overrated.  The idea that their poll ranking can only be validated by beating only CCIW or other highly ranked opponents like Whitewater is very frustrating.

I've watched  Albion live and they're very good and beat a CCIW by 8 that has 2 losses.  Yet nothing.

I kind of figured you might respond as such. That's why I specifically said a team like Albertus Magnus, which plays in one of the worst conferences in Division III.

I don't lump the MIAA in with those leagues. Should I?

No but it doesn't change the fact that I should feel some frustration at the poll dynamics just because you specifically chose to avoid a topic because you fear my wrath.

Hi, sac -- I didn't avoid the topic. I specifically chose to add extra information to something Hoops Fan said. I'm sorry it didn't speak to your specific frustration but my post was not meant to answer every person's question. However, I did word it so that if you read it, you should have been able to understand what I was specifically speaking to. I will try even harder in the future to make sure you personally are able to understand what I'm saying so that we can avoid these back-and-forth exchanges.

[sac]

There's never been a reason for you to treat posters the way you do.  I don't get you.

Have fun at whatever game you're watching this weekend.

[sac]

Two teams came into the last poll one 8-4 the other 7-4,  one was pre-season #4 one #6

One's season has been characterized as "is clearly down from expectations", the other remains in the poll because they "have a cushion"


losses
Team A
8-5
11-0
8-3
12-1
39 wins

Team B
10-2
11-4
7-6
9-3
38 wins

Wins
Team A
8-4
1-11
7-6
5-7
5-8
8-3
5-7
4-6
43 wins

Team B
4-8
6-7
2-11
10-7
5-7
8-5
6-11
41 wins

[smedindy]

Not this again...

I'm waiting for sac to have a huge typo so we can make an acronym out of it to post when the horse he's beating has gone to glue.- 

[Pat Coleman]

There's never been a reason for you to treat posters the way you do.  I don't get you.

I guess I don't see your big-teethed smiles at the end of posts in which you've railed on me as being genuine, and this time around I don't feel like pretending they are. I'll answer fake genuineness in kind.

But I think it's probably fair for you to consider that 'the way I treat posters' is something you've cemented in your brain from more than a decade ago -- a characterization that is not really true anymore. You assume I'm treating you poorly -- just like the other day when you assumed I was arguing against you, when in fact I was in agreement.

People who have only come to the board in the past five or so years probably have a different take. Your view may be a bit outdated.

[sac]

Hi, sac -- I didn't avoid the topic. I specifically chose to add extra information to something Hoops Fan said. I'm sorry it didn't speak to your specific frustration but my post was not meant to answer every person's question. However, I did word it so that if you read it, you should have been able to understand what I was specifically speaking to. I will try even harder in the future to make sure you personally are able to understand what I'm saying so that we can avoid these back-and-forth exchanges.

Yeah, with responses like that one I can't imagine why that would be cemented in my brain.

I posted something that was my own thought adding extra info just as you say you did, you quoted it, I responded back.   Where did I "rail on you" Pat?  I'm sorry did I waste your work afternoon again?

[smedindy]

It was past tense, not that exact post.

[sac]

It was past tense, not that exact post.

Then I'd like to see where I've "railed on him" in the past, because that seems like something cemented in his brain.

There's never been a reason for you to treat posters the way you do.  I don't get you.

I guess I don't see your big-teethed smiles at the end of posts in which you've railed on me as being genuine, and this time around I don't feel like pretending they are. I'll answer fake genuineness in kind.

This also doesn't seem like my issue.