Top 25 talk

[David Collinge]

In elite programs like Wash U., while we may not know much about those bench players that have to step up into key roles, the coach knows all about them; he recruited them, and has been working with them, and he knows what they are capable of.  It seems to me that, at the D3 level, those sort of players are more likely to respond to good coaching and to fit into a good system.  They don't arrive on campus with a highly-defined skill set, like they might at a program like North Carolina.  They may not click in November, since all they really have as background is a few weeks of practice, but by the time February rolls around, top tier coaches like Mark Edwards at top tier programs like Wash U. will have gotten those untested players to a place where they are maximizing their talents, and have them working in a system and gameplan designed to maximize those talents.  Add to this that these players are probably pretty talented to begin with, or else Edwards wouln't have brought them in, and you have a situation where even a "down" year isn't likely to be very far down.

Every D3 coach has to deal with new and different sow's ears each year.  The best of them seem to be capable of making a lot of silk purses, enough to keep a profitable notions store in business year after year.

[Titan Q]

Looks like vs Carthage they did not really play their typical platoon style...
http://www.jcusports.com/custompages/mbball/2011/jcmb1103.htm

See the minutes played.

One reason JCU's press with fewer players may have worked is that Carthage played an even shorter bench!

Carthage's star player, Steve Djurickovic, played all 40 minutes and 4 of their 5 starters played 30 minutes or more in this game.  JCU's press has the effect of wearing teams down.

When your 6th man plays only 16 minutes and your 7th man plays only 7 minutes, it can be tough to beat a press team unless all your starters are in great shape.

Carthage has very little depth.  

The teams picked at the top of the CCIW couldn't be more opposite.  Carthage has the best player in Division III, some solid role players around him in the starting lineup, and not much of a bench.  Illinois Wesleyan really has no true superstar, but has 5 very good starters (when healthy - 2 are out now with injury), and strong backups at all 5 spots, and even beyond.

There is no question Carthage wants to walk the ball up the floor and play a halfcourt game.  In an up-and-down game, their lack of depth hurts them.

[Titan Q]

In elite programs like Wash U., while we may not know much about those bench players that have to step up into key roles, the coach knows all about them; he recruited them, and has been working with them, and he knows what they are capable of.  It seems to me that, at the D3 level, those sort of players are more likely to respond to good coaching and to fit into a good system.  They don't arrive on campus with a highly-defined skill set, like they might at a program like North Carolina.  They may not click in November, since all they really have as background is a few weeks of practice, but by the time February rolls around, top tier coaches like Mark Edwards at top tier programs like Wash U. will have gotten those untested players to a place where they are maximizing their talents, and have them working in a system and gameplan designed to maximize those talents.  Add to this that these players are probably pretty talented to begin with, or else Edwards wouln't have brought them in, and you have a situation where even a "down" year isn't likely to be very far down.

Every D3 coach has to deal with new and different sow's ears each year.  The best of them seem to be capable of making a lot of silk purses, enough to keep a profitable notions store in business year after year.

Absolutely David.

[nwhoops1903]

I'm not sure that voting on "reputation" is such a bad thing at the D3 level.  For one thing, we have comparatively little hard information to go on in the preseason.  On top of that, I think that, at least at the highest level, coaching is more important in D3 than at any other collegiate level.  If a school has one of the elite coaches, they're going to prosper even if there's a nearly complete turnover in athletes.  (Of course, if a school has a truly elite coach, that doesn't happen, as recruiting and playing time tend to be more balanced out among the classes.)  Such a team may struggle in November, trying to put the pieces together, but almost always will be winning in February and a threat in March.  Maybe I'm spoiled by getting to follow Wooster, where Steve Moore is at or near the top of the list of such elite coaches, and where the cliche "reloading not rebuilding" is a truism, but I think Moore is far from alone in this regard.  For example, I'm not terribly surprised that John Carroll is able to win right off the bat with what appears to be a fairly dramatic reduction in personnel and change in approach, and I'd be very surprised to find Washington U. outside the poll in February.

and then...

In elite programs like Wash U., while we may not know much about those bench players that have to step up into key roles, the coach knows all about them; he recruited them, and has been working with them, and he knows what they are capable of.  It seems to me that, at the D3 level, those sort of players are more likely to respond to good coaching and to fit into a good system.  They don't arrive on campus with a highly-defined skill set, like they might at a program like North Carolina.  They may not click in November, since all they really have as background is a few weeks of practice, but by the time February rolls around, top tier coaches like Mark Edwards at top tier programs like Wash U. will have gotten those untested players to a place where they are maximizing their talents, and have them working in a system and gameplan designed to maximize those talents.  Add to this that these players are probably pretty talented to begin with, or else Edwards wouln't have brought them in, and you have a situation where even a "down" year isn't likely to be very far down.

Every D3 coach has to deal with new and different sow's ears each year.  The best of them seem to be capable of making a lot of silk purses, enough to keep a profitable notions store in business year after year.

I agree with David, coaching matters ALOT.  What are the top 10 programs by win pct. over the past 8 years without a coaching change?  Would these be the "elites" spoken of?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

While coaching is a major key... sometimes the "reputation" vote is too much of a consideration.

Take for example Guilford. They are basically a brand new team compared to last year's Final Four squad. They lost size, points, leadership, etc. Reputation says we should give them a Top 25 vote (and many did to put them in the Top 25). However, understanding that their experience and depth have been depleated, no matter what a very good coach can do with his talent, has to be taken into account and maybe overshadow the reputation.

Guildford is now 2-2 with a recent lose to Emory. They are NOT the same team from last year. Will the be good, probably thanks many to the fact that their have a very good coach in Palombo. However, they are not a Top 25 team and probably won't be for the season.

I have gotten burned by the "reputation" vote many times (i.e. Wooster a few years ago) and now take it as part of the equation, but no higher then anything else. Wash U. and Guilford were not on my Top 25 ballot in the pre-season because despite the reputation of the program and clearly good coaches who can do a lot with their talent (the growth of Sanborn at Guilford would be the biggest example of that), losing a number of players that helped develop that reputation is something that I could not overlook.

Of course, the reputation vote can go the other direction as well and leave teams that may be deserving off a ballot (or maybe low). John Carroll appeared in the info we were given by Pat (see his comment earlier in this thread) to have lost more scoring then I realized they would, despite the fact they had a number of good players back. That information along with the fact that I have placed John Carroll too high on my ballot on several occasions caused me to have them rather low in the pre-season. The "reputation" that they never stack up to what I expect from them caused me to vote accordingly - and probably wrongly.

The "reputation" vote is a challenge. Yes, it may give the benefit of the doubt to a team that appears to have lost a lot but always seems to rebuild It will also keep people from voting for a team because there isn't a "reputation" to consider.

I personally hate the "reputation" part of voting and actually do as much as I can to not consider that and keep it as level a playing field as I can. That doesn't mean it doesn't become a factor if comparing a team with a reputation and one with not, but that is one of my last resorts and I will still try and find something else to make my decision for me.

Personally, I think some voters consider reputation way too much when they vote.

[John Gleich]

Personally, I think some voters consider reputation way too much when they vote.

I wonder if it isn't so much "reputation" as it is familiarity.  When voters are looking for who to vote for, especially in the preseason, if they've been voting for a team in the previous year (or in several previous years), then it might just seem natural to place a team in the poll.  Part of it, likely, is coaching as well (we know what type of gameplan they're going to have and what they're going to try to do/try to prevent their opponent from doing) but, for instance, a team like Wash U has been ranked near or at the top for the majority of the last 4 seasons.  It almost seems like they deserve the nod and will eventually play into the spot, even if they aren't there right now.

Perhaps it just seems more natural than voting in a relative unknown or a team that brings a lot back but is coming off of a mediocre season, not a string like Wash U has been on.

[Titan Q]

#24 Augustana 78
#20 Wash U 55

(at Augustana)


Augustana led by 15 at the half and Wash U never challenged in the 2nd.

Wash U got out-rebounded by 16...that seems to tell the story of what a physical mismatch this was.

Both of Wash U's previously injured players, Dylan Richter and Caleb Knepper, played in this game.

[Gregory Sager]

#24 Augustana 78
#20 Wash U 55

(at Augustana)


Augustana led by 15 at the half and Wash U never challenged in the 2nd.

Wash U got out-rebounded by 16...that seems to tell the story of what a physical mismatch this was.

Both of Wash U's previously injured players, Dylan Richter and Caleb Knepper, played in this game.

... but highly-touted freshman Chris Klimek, who would probably play a lot of minutes on this team, didn't.

Mark Edwards used 15 players for Wash U tonight. I think that the Bears are firmly in the rebuilding camp this season rather than the reloading camp, preseason UAA #1 pick or not.

[Mr. Ypsi]

#24 Augustana 78
#20 Wash U 55

(at Augustana)


Augustana led by 15 at the half and Wash U never challenged in the 2nd.

Wash U got out-rebounded by 16...that seems to tell the story of what a physical mismatch this was.

Both of Wash U's previously injured players, Dylan Richter and Caleb Knepper, played in this game.

... but highly-touted freshman Chris Klimek, who would probably play a lot of minutes on this team, didn't.

Mark Edwards used 15 players for Wash U tonight. I think that the Bears are firmly in the rebuilding camp this season rather than the reloading camp, preseason UAA #1 pick or not.

Yeah, it is still awfully early, but I'm becoming convinced they will NOT be re-emerging in the top 25 THIS season.  But, with Coach Edwards there, I already have them penciled in for 2011-12!

[Titan Q]

Yeah, it is still awfully early, but I'm becoming convinced they will NOT be re-emerging in the top 25 THIS season.  But, with Coach Edwards there, I already have them penciled in for 2011-12!

As far as 2011-12 goes, remember that 6-6 Gay and 6-6 Knepper are seniors...those two may end up 1 and 2 in scoring on this team.  Wash U has plenty of young talent on the roster, but it's not like they return all of their good players next year.

It appears to me that Wash U is paying for a lack of good big guy recruits in the current JR and SO classes.  It seems like Alex Toth is the only decent low post player in those classes.  

The top programs tend to have at least one good big guy in every class.  For example, just looking at a couple CCIW schools, Augustana has 6-9 Nelson in the SR class, 6-9 Voilles in the JR class, Scarlata, Kunz, Dexter, and Norton in the sophomore class, and Schlitter in the FR class.  Illinois Wesleyan has Sexauer and Lawson in the SR class, Connolly, Koschnitzky, and Schouten in the JR class, Reed in the SO class...Anderson, Davis, and Ziemnik in the FR class.  

It's really hard to be a top team without low post depth...I'm surprised Wash U does not have it this season as they are about as "top" as a "top program" gets.  I understand that 6-5 freshman Chris Klimek is hurt, but a) he's a freshman - there is no guarantee he was going to make a huge impact this year, and 2) he is a "combo forward", not a back-to-the-basket guy.  Wash U is lacking pure low post guys.

[Gregory Sager]

Yeah, it is still awfully early, but I'm becoming convinced they will NOT be re-emerging in the top 25 THIS season.  But, with Coach Edwards there, I already have them penciled in for 2011-12!

As far as 2011-12 goes, remember that 6-6 Gay and 6-6 Knepper are seniors...those two may end up 1 and 2 in scoring on this team.  Wash U has plenty of young talent on the roster, but it's not like they return all of their good players next year.

It appears to me that Wash U is paying for a lack of good big guy recruits in the current JR and SO classes.  It seems like Alex Toth is the only decent low post player in those classes.  

The top programs tend to have at least one good big guy in every class.  For example, just looking at a couple CCIW schools, Augustana has 6-9 Nelson in the SR class, 6-9 Voilles in the JR class, Scarlata, Kunz, Dexter, and Norton in the sophomore class, and Schlitter in the FR class.  Illinois Wesleyan has Sexauer and Lawson in the SR class, Connolly, Koschnitzky, and Schouten in the JR class, Reed in the SO class...Anderson, Davis, and Ziemnik in the FR class.  

It's really hard to be a top team without low post depth...I'm surprised Wash U does not have it this season as they are about as "top" as a "top program" gets.  I understand that 6-5 freshman Chris Klimek is hurt, but a) he's a freshman - there is no guarantee he was going to make a huge impact this year, and 2) he is a "combo forward", not a back-to-the-basket guy.  Wash U is lacking pure low post guys.

Bob, a whole bunch of Augustana and Wesleyan guys whom you cited as "good big guys" do not fall under the description of a pure low-post guy, just like Klimek.

[Titan Q]

Bob, a whole bunch of Augustana and Wesleyan guys whom you cited as "good big guys" do not fall under the description of a pure low-post guy, just like Klimek.

You are correct, so let me clarify my point.

1) Wash U is lacking depth at the 4 and 5 spots in general...especially in the JR and SO classes.  My point above (about Augustana and IWU's depth at the 4 and 5) applies that opinion.

2) While needing multiple players at the 4 and 5 spots, Wash U's biggest need on this team is at least one more guy who can bang and score down low...a F/C-type player.  I think it's fair to say a healthy Chris Klimek was not going to fill that role this season.

[magicman]

Washington U had not lost back to back games since Feb. 1st and Feb. 3rd of 2008. And you have to go all the way back to November of 2004 to find back to back losses in double digits like they've suffered in the past 3 days. I have to agree that rebuilding rather than reloading is the probable story of this year's team. But it was a heckuva run the last four years---103-16.   

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yeah, it is still awfully early, but I'm becoming convinced they will NOT be re-emerging in the top 25 THIS season.  But, with Coach Edwards there, I already have them penciled in for 2011-12!

As far as 2011-12 goes, remember that 6-6 Gay and 6-6 Knepper are seniors...those two may end up 1 and 2 in scoring on this team.  Wash U has plenty of young talent on the roster, but it's not like they return all of their good players next year.

It appears to me that Wash U is paying for a lack of good big guy recruits in the current JR and SO classes.  It seems like Alex Toth is the only decent low post player in those classes.  

The top programs tend to have at least one good big guy in every class.  For example, just looking at a couple CCIW schools, Augustana has 6-9 Nelson in the SR class, 6-9 Voilles in the JR class, Scarlata, Kunz, Dexter, and Norton in the sophomore class, and Schlitter in the FR class.  Illinois Wesleyan has Sexauer and Lawson in the SR class, Connolly, Koschnitzky, and Schouten in the JR class, Reed in the SO class...Anderson, Davis, and Ziemnik in the FR class.  

It's really hard to be a top team without low post depth...I'm surprised Wash U does not have it this season as they are about as "top" as a "top program" gets.  I understand that 6-5 freshman Chris Klimek is hurt, but a) he's a freshman - there is no guarantee he was going to make a huge impact this year, and 2) he is a "combo forward", not a back-to-the-basket guy.  Wash U is lacking pure low post guys.

Notice I did say 'penciled' in - no ink!

I just have a hard time believing WashU and Coach Edwards would be down more than one year!  (Of course, I NEVER would have believed Michigan football would be down so long, regardless of coach! )

[Titan Q]

Washington U had not lost back to back games since Feb. 1st and Feb. 3rd of 2008. And you have to go all the way back to November of 2004 to find back to back losses in double digits like they've suffered in the past 3 days. I have to agree that rebuilding rather than reloading is the probable story of this year's team. But it was a heckuva run the last four years---103-16.  

We should also remember that these two losses were to good teams.  UW-Platteville might end up being the 2nd best team in the WIAC.  Augustana is rated #24 right now and I suspect they may be closer to a #15 team.  They are just absolutely enormous, and it looks like this nucleus is starting to knock down perimeter shots.

There is a chance that once UAA play starts, Wash U won't see a single team as good as these two, or future non-conference opponent Illinois Wesleyan.  Rebuilding or not, it sounds like they're still the favorite to win the UAA.

And I do feel strongly that the Bears will be a lot better in February than they are right now.