Top 25 talk

[NCF]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

This statement is simply not true, IMHO.  There are automatic qualifiers from conferences that probably would never get a team in if the NCAA picked "the best 62 teams" if everyone was at-large.  Yes, there are upsets, but I could name a few teams that wouldn't sniff the tourney.

I think the regular season should carry more weight than the post season.  I think the post season has more to do with "getting hot" at the right time and winning 5 or 6 games in a row. 

Being from Wisconsin, the Packers were hardly the best team in their Super Bowl year (10-6?), but they got hot at the right time. 

Yes, the post season is where everything counts, but all because someone ends up winning the National Championship, I don't believe they should automatically be voted #1 and the loser of the final be voted #2 (though, in this year's case, I have no problem with that). 

I also think you can't blame the bracket or schedule for a team to get into the Final.  They play who the play, we can't argue that.  Sure, we may think they weren't in the "bracket of death" but we'll never know what would've happened.

I say the same thing for the football play-offs. If you picked the top 32 teams, some of the AQ's would be sitting at home.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

First off... people are underselling Cabrini. I have been cautious about them most of the year, despite the fact they kept rising in my Top 25 poll. I actually locked them into a spot for several weeks and moved teams around them... but eventually I had to move away from that plan as they kept winning and others didn't.

I am just not sure many teams would be able to handle Cabrini's defense. I have seen it quite a bit, but I think the way they played early and then late against IWU was amazing. To follow that up, if they had been smart with fouls in the UWW game... they probably walk away with that game... simply because an 18 point lead with that kind of pressure defense was just too much. (UWW made some great strategic moves especially against a Cabrini team that could not put its best foot forward due to fouls and it paid off in spades.)

Finally, Cabrini's style of play can be high scoring or sufficating and low scoring... in other words, they can adjust to different team's style. Look at the Castleton State score... then look at the championship game's score. They don't have to score a ton to win... but can if they need to. They can run up and down the court... or they can use their defense to shut down the other team's offense, taking pressure away from having to score a ton of points. That is a tough combination to deal with for any team.

Having seen most of the teams smedindy mentioned putting ahead of Cabrini... Cabrini is better than those. F&M is good, but they would have struggled against Cabrini's defense (fast enough to cut down on Milligan's drives to the lane and physical enough to shut-down the Diplomats interior game). Amherst struggled against F&M's stout defense, I can't imagine they would have had success against Cabrini's.

As for Hope and IWU... I agree that a head-to-head is significant in many cases, but since it was a 2 OT game... in the grand scheme of things, I couldn't knock Hope that far down for one loss on the season. If you go on that theory that IWU should be above Hope because of that... then IWU should be below North Central and Wheaton for the same reasons. Head-to-head is a good indicator, but it can't be the only one... I placed Hope #3 on my ballot... and IWU #5, though Q knows I was debating about leaving them out of my top ten.

Finally, MIT... I like their game... and I like their style... but unless they dictate the tempo and style of play, they can't win. They dictated a lot in the tournament until they ran into UWW (though, they did play a horrible game at the wrong time of the year). I think they would have struggled mightily with Cabrini's defense because I don't think the Engineers could have come down the court and set-up in a half-court set like IWU was able to do for part of the second half. I also don't think MIT would have been able to handle the full (or 3/4) court press from the Cavaliers, especially with a hobbled Hollingsworth. Also, they would have had to rely on Karraker and others to hit outside shots... and that aspect is not MIT's bread-and-butter and certainly was hot and cold this season. Finally, Kates struggled against UWW's guards... can you imagine what he would have faced with Cabrini's? MIT was a very good team this year, but they weren't #2 in the long run.

By the way, Scranton doesn't make that run in the tournament unless the following factors happen:
- they win the Landmark Conference for the AQ (they don't get in otherwise)
- Becker beats William Paterson (who was asleep in that game and probably would have matched up well against Scranton)
I can't put that much stock into how Scranton played in the tournament and put them as high as #15 or higher as some voters did. I gave them some love... but not that much (I still think their game plan against Middlebury was terrific and they are lucky they could hit the shots with just a few seconds on the shot clock time and time again... or that is a different outcome).

And as much as people have used the Massey ratings this year... I just don't put that much stock in them as a determining factor... call them secondary criteria for me .

[Hugenerd]

Finally, MIT... I like their game... and I like their style... but unless they dictate the tempo and style of play, they can't win. They dictated a lot in the tournament until they ran into UWW (though, they did play a horrible game at the wrong time of the year). I think they would have struggled mightily with Cabrini's defense because I don't think the Engineers could have come down the court and set-up in a half-court set like IWU was able to do for part of the second half. I also don't think MIT would have been able to handle the full (or 3/4) court press from the Cavaliers, especially with a hobbled Hollingsworth. Also, they would have had to rely on Karraker and others to hit outside shots... and that aspect is not MIT's bread-and-butter and certainly was hot and cold this season. Finally, Kates struggled against UWW's guards... can you imagine what he would have faced with Cabrini's? MIT was a very good team this year, but they weren't #2 in the long run.

Kates also outplayed Tibbs and Milligan on back-to-back nights.  He had an off night against UWW, but he was missing layups he usually makes.  I dont think it was that he was having trouble with their guards, its that he didnt play well in general that night (watch the video, he was making all those drives to the baskets in the first 4 rounds; for example, he had a layup at the end of the first half he missed that he typically makes, luckily Tashman was there to put it back in).

Hollingsworth and Karraker were both hurt essentially the whole season, but thats no excuse because they also performed well with the same injuries (Karraker has been having fluid drained from his knees regularly, from what I hear, and Hollingsworth played the whole season with a stress fracture in his foot).  Collectively, they just didnt play well that night.  A lot of the credit goes to UWW, but they missed an awful lot of open shots also (ones they made the weekend prior).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hugenerd, remember, I actually saw MIT play three straight games and was on the call for that last one (don't need to watch the video )... and while Kates certainly was able to drive on UWW and in most of the games he played... his looks at the basket against UWW were not that good. While he got in the paint... he couldn't get a good handle on what to do next. The missed shot you talked about... was about as good as his looks got. I don't think he could have had more success against Cabrini.

MIT was good... just don't think they were title good.

[Hugenerd]

Hugenerd, remember, I actually saw MIT play three straight games and was on the call for that last one (don't need to watch the video )... and while Kates certainly was able to drive on UWW and in most of the games he played... his looks at the basket against UWW were not that good. While he got in the paint... he couldn't get a good handle on what to do next. The missed shot you talked about... was about as good as his looks got. I don't think he could have had more success against Cabrini.

MIT was good... just don't think they were title good.

Neither was Cabrini!  Only UWW was championship good this year.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Cabrini came damn close...

[rlk]

Hugenerd, remember, I actually saw MIT play three straight games and was on the call for that last one (don't need to watch the video )... and while Kates certainly was able to drive on UWW and in most of the games he played... his looks at the basket against UWW were not that good. While he got in the paint... he couldn't get a good handle on what to do next. The missed shot you talked about... was about as good as his looks got. I don't think he could have had more success against Cabrini.

MIT was good... just don't think they were title good.

Neither was Cabrini!  Only UWW was championship good this year.

No argument (as an MIT fan) with that.  While we couldn't get our shots to fall, as Coach Anderson said, a lot of that was due to Whitewater's D.  And it was Whitewater, after all, that refused to give up against Cabrini.  That's a never say die, championship attitude, and I salute Whitewater as the true champions.

BTW, my wife told me that the video announcers were very impressed with how low we were able to hold Whitewater's scoring total (until the last 4 minutes, of course, when things got desperate).  I believe they scored only 54 points until then.  I don't think our D was too bad (Whitewater's own shooting percentage wasn't very good), but they got entirely too many second chances, and Davis of course was unstoppable (although it's interesting that he actually shot only 50%).  And I do think Dawson had a very nice game indeed spelling Kates.  He fouled out with only 11 minutes, but he got 5 points and zero turnovers, and it looked like a lot of his role was to play very tight defense and accept those fouls.

[rlk]

Cabrini came damn close...

Depends on how you look at it.  If you look at the final score in isolation, yep.  If you look at crunch time -- the final 15 minutes of the game -- they got blown off the court when it really mattered.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hugenerd, remember, I actually saw MIT play three straight games and was on the call for that last one (don't need to watch the video )... and while Kates certainly was able to drive on UWW and in most of the games he played... his looks at the basket against UWW were not that good. While he got in the paint... he couldn't get a good handle on what to do next. The missed shot you talked about... was about as good as his looks got. I don't think he could have had more success against Cabrini.

MIT was good... just don't think they were title good.

Neither was Cabrini!  Only UWW was championship good this year.

BTW, my wife told me that the video announcers were very impressed with how low we were able to hold Whitewater's scoring total (until the last 4 minutes, of course, when things got desperate).  I believe they scored only 54 points until then.  I don't think our D was too bad (Whitewater's own shooting percentage wasn't very good), but they got entirely too many second chances, and Davis of course was unstoppable (although it's interesting that he actually shot only 50%).  And I do think Dawson had a very nice game indeed spelling Kates.  He fouled out with only 11 minutes, but he got 5 points and zero turnovers, and it looked like a lot of his role was to play very tight defense and accept those fouls.

That was me on the call... and I did make a point of showing how low MIT kept UWW's offense.

And yes, in those 10 minutes, UWW was the better team... but Cabrini got a decent look at a 3 late... and nearly tied the game after all of that.

[smedindy]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

This statement is simply not true, IMHO.  There are automatic qualifiers from conferences that probably would never get a team in if the NCAA picked "the best 62 teams" if everyone was at-large.  Yes, there are upsets, but I could name a few teams that wouldn't sniff the tourney.

By an independent measure Cabrini was the fourth best team regular AND post season combined. Remember there are over 400 D-3 teams. Most all tournament teams were in the top quartile of D-3 teams in Massey. Just because your sense doesn't think X is a top team doesn't mean they aren't. And the line separating the 62nd from the 102nd best isn't really that huge, considering over 400 teams are around.

And what would happen with you guys if the 'wrong' team from the 'wrong' region or 'wrong' conference went undefeated and won the title? The teams and conferences you always say are 'weak' and 'don't play anyone' - what happens if they play their schedule, then win the tourney? Would you scoff then?

[smedindy]

D-Mac, that wasn't me that had teams ahead of them. I had Cabrini #2 in my poll. I think people need to realize that there are others out there that can play and shatter the grained in notions of regional strengths.

And Massey is a heck of a rating system to take biases OUT, which is what we all want.

[Ralph Turner]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

This statement is simply not true, IMHO.  There are automatic qualifiers from conferences that probably would never get a team in if the NCAA picked "the best 62 teams" if everyone was at-large.  Yes, there are upsets, but I could name a few teams that wouldn't sniff the tourney.

By an independent measure Cabrini was the fourth best team regular AND post season combined. Remember there are over 400 D-3 teams. Most all tournament teams were in the top quartile of D-3 teams in Massey. Just because your sense doesn't think X is a top team doesn't mean they aren't. And the line separating the 62nd from the 102nd best isn't really that huge, considering over 400 teams are around.

And what would happen with you guys if the 'wrong' team from the 'wrong' region or 'wrong' conference went undefeated and won the title? The teams and conferences you always say are 'weak' and 'don't play anyone' - what happens if they play their schedule, then win the tourney? Would you scoff then?

From an observer of  "wrong team/wrong conference/wrong region" team, well-stated!  +1!

Cabrini's system may continue to give teams fits when they first see it executed against them at the national level.

[Mr. Ypsi]

D-Mac, that wasn't me that had teams ahead of them. I had Cabrini #2 in my poll. I think people need to realize that there are others out there that can play and shatter the grained in notions of regional strengths.

And Massey is a heck of a rating system to take biases OUT, which is what we all want.

And smedindy is obviously a bball genius, since he and I had identical picks for the top 8 on our Posters' Poll ballots!  (While Ralph and I are often the most similar, I can't recall ever going that far down with no differences!)

[Hugenerd]

Cabrini came damn close...

Both they and MIT were one UWW run away from potentially winning, but the result was the same in both games. UWW plays great defense, but MIT was missing wide open 3s that night. MIT was leading 3 minutes into the 2nd half, despite shooting 1-11 from 3 to that point. They shoot anywhere close to their season average and they could have been up double digits also. Would it have mattered? I don't know, but what I do know is both teams ended up losing. Getting outscored by 20-21 in a 13-14 minute span isn't that hot whether it happens at the beginning or at the end of the 2nd half, as UWW did to MIT and Cabrini, respectively.

[Gregory Sager]

Cabrini came damn close...

Depends on how you look at it.  If you look at the final score in isolation, yep.  If you look at crunch time -- the final 15 minutes of the game -- they got blown off the court when it really mattered.

Cabrini had an 18-point lead with the clock under 14 minutes remaining in the game. Are you seriously telling me that those initial 26 minutes didn't really matter?