Top 25 talk

[John Gleich]

And for Sager - when I say the CCIW is stronger this year, I simply mean that they're going four, maybe five deep this year.  That hasn't happened in a while.

Last year in the CCIW

No. Cent          12-2
Wheaton          11-3
Ill. Wes            10-4
Augustana         9-5
Carthage           6-8

Carthage beat Wheaton, and lost OT games to Augustana and NCC. In total 7 of their 8 conference losses came at the hands of the 4 teams above them all by single-digits.  They lost their last 3 conference games.

It's not really that different I don't think

And IWU made it to Salem, and North Central and... Augie(?) made it to the Elite 8 (Sweet 16? Sorry, I was focused on what UWSP's rival Whitewater was doing!)

[Titan Q]

You are assuming a lot... further more, the only SOS is a flawed system at Massey. 

Dave, I assume you mean because there are some non-D3 games included in the Massey SOS?  There is no question about that, but:

1) Are there really enough non-D3 games left out there for that to make a significant difference?  In other words enough to make a team that has played weak schedule appear to have played a strong schedule, or vice versa?  In just looking at the CCIW, a league that used to play quite a few NAIA games, this year out of 88 non-conference games, there were just 6 non-D3 (all NAIA) I believe.

2) As you allude to, Massey is really all we have in terms of SOS.  The D3 criteria version of SOS is incredibly flawed for the reasons Hoops Fan points out...

SOS is a tough indicator given the regionalization of d3.  I've gone over this every season, but SOS in the NE region is inflated because of so many teams and conferences.  A team can be 20-5 in the NECC without having played anyone of note (although teams with decent records in their own right).  You can really load up on easy wins over teams with good records in the NE.

IWU played 3 D3 games this year that are excluded from that calculation (Tufts, Mississippi College, Hope) at the present time.  There are hundreds of games like that that aren't factored in to the D3 SOS.


I guess it just seems to me that Massey's SOS is generally very reliable.  I don't see enough flaws to make me question the picture it paints.  Just my opinion.
 

[Titan Q]

And for Sager - when I say the CCIW is stronger this year, I simply mean that they're going four, maybe five deep this year.  That hasn't happened in a while.

Last year in the CCIW

No. Cent          12-2
Wheaton          11-3
Ill. Wes            10-4
Augustana         9-5
Carthage           6-8

Carthage beat Wheaton, and lost OT games to Augustana and NCC. In total 7 of their 8 conference losses came at the hands of the 4 teams above them all by single-digits.  They lost their last 3 conference games.

It's not really that different I don't think

And IWU made it to Salem, and North Central and... Augie(?) made it to the Elite 8 (Sweet 16? Sorry, I was focused on what UWSP's rival Whitewater was doing!)

Last year the CCIW had three teams in the Sweet 16 - IWU, North Central, and Wheaton - with IWU advancing to Salem.  Wheaton lost to eventual champ UW-Whitewater in the round of 16 and North Central lost to Wittenberg at Wooster.  Augustana, which did not make the field, was right there with these 3 teams...CCIW results from 2012 should show hardly any separation between Augie and the 3 that made the tournament.

As sac pointed out, I don't see much difference in the configuration of the league this year.  There are 4 good teams again (the same 4 actually), with Carthage playing that "on any given night..." role.  The impressive thing is the degree that Augustana, IWU, and Wheaton reloaded from last year - each really lost a lot and inserted several new players this year.

Seems like the UAA, WIAC, CCIW, and ODAC are the top 4 leagues this year...not a real surprise there.

[Gregory Sager]

In external terms, the only difference between this season's CCIW and last season's CCIW is that North Central waited until January to have its injury flurry. Last season the Cardinals had a plague of hurts in December that played a huge role in messing up NCC's non-conference record. This year the Cards were healthy in the pre-conference portion of the season, which meant that their non-conference record is radically better than it was last season.

Of course, the postseason is a part of that equation, too, but we have no way of knowing yet how the CCIW will fare in March. All that we do know is that the league is not having an outstanding season to date by its own recent standards.

I posted the chart below on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. Here's how the CCIW has performed in the post-Carroll era in terms of overall non-con wins and losses as well as postseason play in particular (postseason CCIW vs. CCIW games not counted):

season	W-L (.pct)	D3 tmt W-L (# of teams in D3 tmt)
1992-93	55-38 (.591)	5-1 (1 team)
1993-94	50-39 (.562)	1-1 (1 team)
1994-95	54-38 (.587)	3-2 (2 teams)
1995-96	53-41 (.564)	6-2 (2 teams)
1996-97	45-37 (.548)	6-0 (1 team)
1997-98	46-44 (.511)	1-1 (1 team)
1998-99	59-34 (.634)	1-2 (2 teams)
1999-00	63-26 (.708)	0-1 (1 team)
2000-01	75-25 (.750)	8-2 (3 teams)
2001-02	60-33 (.645)	4-1 (1 team)
2002-03	61-30 (.670)	2-1 (1 team)
2003-04	62-28 (.678)	2-1 (1 team)
2004-05	63-27 (.700)	0-2 (2 teams)
2005-06	63-34 (.649)	7-3 (3 teams)
2006-07	66-23 (.741)	0-1 (1 team)
2007-08	66-28 (.702)	4-2 (2 teams)
2008-09	73-19 (.793)	2-2 (2 teams)
2009-10	60-35 (.632)	5-2 (3 teams)
2010-11	56-37 (.602)	4-2 (2 teams)
2011-12	59-40 (.596)	8-3 (3 teams)
2012-13	57-31 (.648)	?

As you can see, the CCIW is well below the .670-to-the.700s-and-up trend established at the turn of the millennium, even though it's up from the past couple of seasons.

[sac]

You are assuming a lot... further more, the only SOS is a flawed system at Massey. 

Dave, I assume you mean because there are some non-D3 games included in the Massey SOS?  There is no question about that, but:

1) Are there really enough non-D3 games left out there for that to make a significant difference?  In other words enough to make a team that has played weak schedule appear to have played a strong schedule, or vice versa?  In just looking at the CCIW, a league that used to play quite a few NAIA games, this year out of 88 non-conference games, there were just 6 non-D3 (all NAIA) I believe.

2) As you allude to, Massey is really all we have in terms of SOS.  The D3 criteria version of SOS is incredibly flawed for the reasons Hoops Fan points out...

SOS is a tough indicator given the regionalization of d3.  I've gone over this every season, but SOS in the NE region is inflated because of so many teams and conferences.  A team can be 20-5 in the NECC without having played anyone of note (although teams with decent records in their own right).  You can really load up on easy wins over teams with good records in the NE.

IWU played 3 D3 games this year that are excluded from that calculation (Tufts, Mississippi College, Hope) at the present time.  There are hundreds of games like that that aren't factored in to the D3 SOS.


I guess it just seems to me that Massey's SOS is generally very reliable.  I don't see enough flaws to make me question the picture it paints.  Just my opinion.

Massey currently has Pacific Lutheran as playing the 12th toughest schedule in D3.  Filtering out Pacific Lutheran' exhibition game with Seattle Pacific takes that schedule down to #30.  Calvin is at #95 filter out their exhibition game with Ferris State takes it down to #118.  I guess its up to the reader to decide if that's enough of an error.

The other big problem with massey is the number of missing scores, particularly involving NAIA and lower divisions.  Its frustrating that it can't be 100% accurate but in general massey is usually 'in the ballpark' and its the best we have.  I just wish it could be better and more accurate.

[sac]

In external terms, the only difference between this season's CCIW and last season's CCIW is that North Central waited until January to have its injury flurry. Last season the Cardinals had a plague of hurts in December that played a huge role in messing up NCC's non-conference record. This year the Cards were healthy in the pre-conference portion of the season, which meant that their non-conference record is radically better than it was last season.

Of course, the postseason is a part of that equation, too, but we have no way of knowing yet how the CCIW will fare in March. All that we do know is that the league is not having an outstanding season to date by its own recent standards.

I posted the chart below on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. Here's how the CCIW has performed in the post-Carroll era in terms of overall non-con wins and losses as well as postseason play in particular (postseason CCIW vs. CCIW games not counted):

season	W-L (.pct)	D3 tmt W-L (# of teams in D3 tmt)
1992-93	55-38 (.591)	5-1 (1 team)
1993-94	50-39 (.562)	1-1 (1 team)
1994-95	54-38 (.587)	3-2 (2 teams)
1995-96	53-41 (.564)	6-2 (2 teams)
1996-97	45-37 (.548)	6-0 (1 team)
1997-98	46-44 (.511)	1-1 (1 team)
1998-99	59-34 (.634)	1-2 (2 teams)
1999-00	63-26 (.708)	0-1 (1 team)
2000-01	75-25 (.750)	8-2 (3 teams)
2001-02	60-33 (.645)	4-1 (1 team)
2002-03	61-30 (.670)	2-1 (1 team)
2003-04	62-28 (.678)	2-1 (1 team)
2004-05	63-27 (.700)	0-2 (2 teams)
2005-06	63-34 (.649)	7-3 (3 teams)
2006-07	66-23 (.741)	0-1 (1 team)
2007-08	66-28 (.702)	4-2 (2 teams)
2008-09	73-19 (.793)	2-2 (2 teams)
2009-10	60-35 (.632)	5-2 (3 teams)
2010-11	56-37 (.602)	4-2 (2 teams)
2011-12	59-40 (.596)	8-3 (3 teams)
2012-13	57-31 (.648)	?

As you can see, the CCIW is well below the .670-to-the.700s-and-up trend established at the turn of the millennium, even though it's up from the past couple of seasons.

I'm kind of confused why some people seem to think the CCIW is "down" or "not up to past standards".  This years .648 win % puts it #7 on that 21 year list, making it in the top 1/3 and frankly above avg.

Are we simply comparing the CCIW to its very best seasons, and isn't that always going to be futile?

[Gregory Sager]

If you look at the list, there's a pretty dramatic break between the '90s and the Oughts, sac. that's why I said this:

As you can see, the CCIW is well below the .670-to-the.700s-and-up trend established at the turn of the millennium, even though it's up from the past couple of seasons.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If you look at the list, there's a pretty dramatic break between the '90s and the Oughts, sac. that's why I said this:

As you can see, the CCIW is well below the .670-to-the.700s-and-up trend established at the turn of the millennium, even though it's up from the past couple of seasons.

The break is far less dramatic if you add in the post-season, where 93, 96, and 97 were better than most years in the aughts.

Reinforces the notion that tourney success is almost as much who is 'hot' and 'fortunate' as it is who is 'good'.  ALL THREE are necessary to go very far (though 'good' is the most basic).  I remain convinced that Hope last year was a perfectly worthy #1, even if we did take them out in the second round.

[Titan Q]

I'm kind of confused why some people seem to think the CCIW is "down" or "not up to past standards".  This years .648 win % puts it #7 on that 21 year list, making it in the top 1/3 and frankly above avg.

Are we simply comparing the CCIW to its very best seasons, and isn't that always going to be futile?

I think only Greg is in that camp.  I don't recall seeing anyone else suggest that.  I think the CCIW "is who we thought it was" (shout out to Dennis Green).  Typical year really.

The CCIW's current problem - in terms of overall strength - is what's happening at North Park and Elmhurst.  The programs at NPU and EC are not in great shape right now...althouth NPU has a new coach with a strong track record at Anderson, and Elmhurst's Mark Scherer has had a lot of good CCIW seasons in the past.

In North Central, Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Augustana, the CCIW really has four extremely strong "anchor" programs at the present time - each of these programs is poised to be good year after year.  Carthage is a good, solid 5th program.  Millikin plays 10 freshman this year and seems to have brighter days ahead under Matt Nadelhoffer, who is working his tail off to build the Big Blue.

[Pat Coleman]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

[KnightSlappy]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

[AO]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

Last year the MIAC had a terrific non-conference record; Massey must account better than the official d3 SOS for the high amount of conference games that the MIAC plays.

[KnightSlappy]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

Last year the MIAC had a terrific non-conference record; Massey must account better than the official d3 SOS for the high amount of conference games that the MIAC plays.

26-32?

WIAC was 65-27

[Pat Coleman]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

I wouldn't bat an eye at the WIAC having that happen, no. It was the MIAC, and I know UST won the national title but six MIAC teams in the top 30 is how that season ended, including 14-11 St. John's:

http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2011&sub=11620

[AO]

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

I wouldn't bat an eye at the WIAC having that happen, no. It was the MIAC, and I know UST won the national title but six MIAC teams in the top 30 is how that season ended, including 14-11 St. John's:

http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2011&sub=11620

St. John's did have a win over D2 St. Cloud state, only non-conference loss to Stevens Point and they gave St. Thomas much better games than did runner-up Wooster. 

For me, Massey seems to overestimate schedule strength with Wisconsin as its epicenter. No doubt that Wisconsin is indeed a center of excellence in basketball and football, but in past years that has manifested itself in Massey having four MIAC teams in the top 30 in his ratings. This year doesn't seem as bad, so maybe I've gotten used to it or maybe something has changed.

MIAC or WIAC? (Not being flippant, wanting to check the history).

I think the strong WIAC rating does make intuitive sense though. They routinely have one of the top three or four non-conference winning percentages, and they don't shy away from playing the teams like St. Thomas, or the CCIW.

Last year the MIAC had a terrific non-conference record; Massey must account better than the official d3 SOS for the high amount of conference games that the MIAC plays.

26-32?

WIAC was 65-27

Sorry confused my seasons, it was the 10-11 season that was very good for the MIAC in the non-conference.