Top 25 talk

[Darryl Nester]

How They Fared (Complete)

The MIT/Wheelock game is still early in the second half, but with MIT leading by 31, I am giving them the win.  (The score posted is with just over 13 minutes to go.) <fixed>

Top 25

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#1	625	St. Thomas	24-1	def. St. Olaf, 62-57
#2	574	Amherst	23-2	won at #3 Middlebury, 104-101; def. Colby, 83-52
#3	568	Middlebury	22-2	LOST to #2 Amherst, 101-104; def. Wesleyan, 61-49
#4	515	Illinois Wesleyan	21-3	def. Millikin, 68-54
#5	499	WPI	23-2	LOST at #22 MIT, 60-69; won at Clark, 66-51
#6	466	Rochester	21-3	def. Carnegie Mellon, 81-77; LOST to Case Western Reserve, 51-57
#7	450	St. Mary's (Md.)	22-3	LOST at Salisbury, 71-72; def. Mary Washington, 89-80
#8	446	North Central (Ill.)	21-3	def. North Park, 88-61
#9	355	Wooster	21-4	won at Allegheny, 86-64; LOST at DePauw, 52-68
#10	347	Williams	22-3	def. Trinity (Conn.), 68-47; def. Bates, 88-79
#11	343	Hampden-Sydney	22-3	LOST to #36 Virginia Wesleyan, 77-78; won at Emory and Henry, 82-61
#12	326	Whitworth	22-3	won at Linfield, 86-53; won at Willamette, 86-67
#13	323	Catholic	22-3	won at Goucher, 71-43; def. Moravian, 86-70
#14	318	UW-Whitewater	21-4	won at UW-Oshkosh, 75-58; def. UW-River Falls, 72-69
#15	290	UW-Stevens Point	21-4	won at #32 UW-Stout, 76-74; def. UW-Eau Claire, 68-34
#16	288	Ramapo	21-4	def. Richard Stockton, 74-64; LOST at William Paterson, 60-61
#17	249	Washington U.	19-5	LOST at New York University, 82-86; won at Brandeis, 76-60
#18	237	Rose-Hulman	22-3	LOST at Earlham, 66-68; won at Hanover, 59-57
#19	215	Calvin	22-3	def. Trine, 61-59; def. Olivet, 86-60
#20	195	Rhode Island College	22-3	won at Western Connecticut, 69-60; won at Keene State, 86-64
#21	125	Wheaton (Ill.)	19-5	def. Carthage, 64-58
#22	93	MIT	20-4	def. Clark, 69-44; def. #5 WPI, 69-60; def. Wheelock, 76-34
#23	82	Cortland State	21-4	def. New Paltz State, 87-47; LOST at Plattsburgh State, 77-80; won at Potsdam State, 69-56
#24	68	Stevens	21-4	won at Alfred, 67-55; LOST at St. John Fisher, 73-82
#25	29	Wesley	19-6	LOST to Salisbury, 78-83

Others receiving votes

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
T#26	19	Albertus Magnus	21-4	won at Coast Guard, 87-82; def. St. Joseph's (Maine), 76-66; LOST at Johnson and Wales, 72-74
T#26	19	Transylvania	19-6	LOST to Hanover, 70-73; def. Bluffton, 81-74
T#28	18	Mary Hardin-Baylor	21-4	LOST to Howard Payne, 73-75; def. Sul Ross State, 87-61
T#28	18	Ohio Wesleyan	19-5	def. Wabash, 79-64; won at Denison, 67-64
#30	10	Christopher Newport	18-5	def. North Carolina Wesleyan, 93-67; won at Averett, 77-56; won at Ferrum, 76-52
#31	5	SUNY-Old Westbury	22-3	def. St. Joseph's (L.I.), 119-80; LOST at Sage, 96-98
#32	3	UW-Stout	19-6	LOST to #15 UW-Stevens Point, 74-76; def. UW-Oshkosh, 49-47
T#33	2	St. Norbert	18-5	def. Ripon, 57-52; won at Illinois College, 70-68
T#33	2	Randolph	20-5	won at Lynchburg, 58-49; LOST at Randolph-Macon, 52-70
T#33	2	Alvernia	21-4	def. Hood, 70-59; won at Messiah, 73-67
#36	1	Virginia Wesleyan	19-6	won at #11 Hampden-Sydney, 78-77; def. Lynchburg, 71-54

[Hugenerd]

MIT-Wheelock now a final, MIT wins 76-34. Tashman finished with 28 points and 19 boards.  Congrats to him, as he becomes the first player in MIT history to go for 1000 points and 1000 boards for his career.

[02 Warhawk]

I'm relatively new to D3 hoops. I've always follwed UWW sports, but never d3 basketball on a national level. I was curious, of the top 25 teams, is there only a small group of schools that are serious national title contenders? Like in D3 football, there's always teams with impressive records, but never can win a tourny game because they play in a weak conference. I guess the same thing can be said about the 16th ranked teams in the NCAA D1 tournament.

I was wondering if the same applied to D3 basketball? If so, which schools are considered serious contenders? Also which schools may not be as strong, because they compiled a good record in a weak conference?

I understand if you don't to insult some programs on this thread,  so feel free to send me an private message.

Thanks in advance.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Warhawk - basketball is completely different than football has been. There are never teams we look at year in and year out as the favorite to win a national title like Mount Union and UW-Whitewater have been the last eight-plus years.

The fact teams play about 25 games a season, have to go through their conference usually twice (unless you are the NESCAC or you have an overloaded conference like the ODAC), and the bracket is more challenging with one more round thanks to 62 teams... you can never be sure who will win a national title.

Certainly there are always favorites from conferences like the WIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, UAA and ODAC, but teams have won national titles without coming from power conferences.

Basketball is a completely different beast.

[02 Warhawk]

Thanks d-mac, that helps me understand.

So, outside the WIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, UAA and ODAC, are the teams with good records in other conferences really that good? Or are they just a product of playing in a weak conference? I should I be taking every team in the top 25 as serious contenders?

[gordonmann]

02 Warhawk:

Those are the five "power conferences," to borrow the Division I terminology, but it is more possible for great teams in smaller conferences to make deep tournament runs in basketball than in football.  Last year the Warhawks defeated Cabrini in the men's basketball final.  Cabrini is from a conference that's comparable to the Northern Athletics Conference.  Can you imagine the NAC football champion reaching the Stagg Bowl?  That'll give you a sense for the greater parity in hoops.

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Thanks d-mac, that helps me understand.

So, outside the WIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, UAA and ODAC, are the teams with good records in other conferences really that good? Or are they just a product of playing in a weak conference? I should I be taking every team in the top 25 as serious contenders?

Probably not every team in the top 25 (most champs have been in the top 5, or at least top 10, going in), but champs can come from just about any conference.  While not common, a great team from a weak conference can still be a great team.

Football requires such numbers of contributors that great programs can dominate for a long time.  In basketball, one great player can't carry you all the way, but even just two great players (with an adequate supporting cast) can get it done.  So the turnover of teams is likely to be much greater.

Alternatively, a great program may not need stars.  IWU has shot up the poll despite the fact that the guy I thought we needed to be an AA to succeed has been a relative dud (Victor Davis), the guy who led the team in scoring (despite being the sixth man) is out for the season (the younger brother of our graduated AA from a FF team - Jordan, then Brady, Zimmer); they succeed because we have ten guys that you barely notice the difference when some are on the bench - like in Lake Wobegon, they are all (well) 'above average'!

[smedindy]

In hoops as well, a decent conference can be hidden by a 'meat grinder' and by the double round robin (or close to it in some leagues) where familiarity breeds contempt.

Take this year's NCAC for example - they had a good to great non-conference record and pretty much dominated the OAC in inter-league play. But in the league they beat up each other, so much so that the three teams with the worst non-conference records (Denison, Wabash, Oberlin) made the tourney, two pretty good teams in DePauw and Wittenberg finished 9-7 in the league, and two teams that were 6-3 in the non-conference finished 9th and 10th. But they're not ELITE (only Wooster is really elite and OWU is in the pretty darn good category), just a lot of good teams this year.

[KnightSlappy]

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

It just struck me that, for all the quality teams the CCIW has turned out, they really haven't done that well in March. I mean, they've been really good of course, but not as good as the NCAC and only marginally better than the MIAA -- two leagues that are generally considered to be a tier below.

Perhaps it has to do with the teams making the tournament. The CCIW has a solid top and good depth, but the top teams are not necessarily better than Wooster, Wittenberg, Calvin, and Hope.

[AO]

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

It just struck me that, for all the quality teams the CCIW has turned out, they really haven't done that well in March. I mean, they've been really good of course, but not as good as the NCAC and only marginally better than the MIAA -- two leagues that are generally considered to be a tier below.

Perhaps it has to do with the teams making the tournament. The CCIW has a solid top and good depth, but the top teams are not necessarily better than Wooster, Wittenberg, Calvin, and Hope.

I'd say the CCIW should be ranked higher than the NCAC and MIAA due to depth from 3-7, but I'd put them all on the same tier.  The next tier of conference should be a heavy favorite at every position in the conference, and I don't really see any single elite conference that fits that bill.

[02 Warhawk]

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

It just struck me that, for all the quality teams the CCIW has turned out, they really haven't done that well in March. I mean, they've been really good of course, but not as good as the NCAC and only marginally better than the MIAA -- two leagues that are generally considered to be a tier below.

Perhaps it has to do with the teams making the tournament. The CCIW has a solid top and good depth, but the top teams are not necessarily better than Wooster, Wittenberg, Calvin, and Hope.

So the NCAC and the MIAA isn't a very strong conference in basketball (compared to the top tier conferences at least)?

[KnightSlappy]

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

It just struck me that, for all the quality teams the CCIW has turned out, they really haven't done that well in March. I mean, they've been really good of course, but not as good as the NCAC and only marginally better than the MIAA -- two leagues that are generally considered to be a tier below.

Perhaps it has to do with the teams making the tournament. The CCIW has a solid top and good depth, but the top teams are not necessarily better than Wooster, Wittenberg, Calvin, and Hope.

So the NCAC and the MIAA isn't a very strong conference in basketball (compared to the top tier conferences at least)?

I'd say, generally speaking, the NCAC and MIAA are in the 6-15 range when it comes to conferenece rankings. In there with the MIAC, MACC, NWC, IIAC, ASW, OAC, and more recently the HCAC (among others). Decidedly above average, but not in the elite group.

[7express]

I agree, the LEC isn't a strong/powerful as the WIAC, NESCAC, UAA is, especially this year, but the numbers Pat just posted should make them one of the powers in basketball.  Last year 6th best record against non conference opponents, 5th best record against division 3 non conference opponents, 11th out of 43 conferences in winning percentage since 2003, and tied for 6th for the most bids since 2003.
Those numbers will take a dip for this season based on the talent that was lost, but the tournament numbers the last 10 years show the LEC isn't a slouch either.

[Pat Coleman]

I agree, the LEC isn't a strong/powerful as the WIAC, NESCAC, UAA is, especially this year, but the numbers Pat just posted should make them one of the powers in basketball.  Last year 6th best record against non conference opponents, 5th best record against division 3 non conference opponents, 11th out of 43 conferences in winning percentage since 2003, and tied for 6th for the most bids since 2003.
Those numbers will take a dip for this season based on the talent that was lost, but the tournament numbers the last 10 years show the LEC isn't a slouch either.

Gotta give Gordon Mann credit where credit is due -- that's his post, and the Guidebook is his research and compilation.

[sac]

Here's a comparison of how the Division III conferences stack up, including their NCAA tournament performance for the last 10 years.

It just struck me that, for all the quality teams the CCIW has turned out, they really haven't done that well in March. I mean, they've been really good of course, but not as good as the NCAC and only marginally better than the MIAA -- two leagues that are generally considered to be a tier below.

Perhaps it has to do with the teams making the tournament. The CCIW has a solid top and good depth, but the top teams are not necessarily better than Wooster, Wittenberg, Calvin, and Hope.

I think for the CCIW its who they're paired with in the tournament.  To get to Salem a CCIW program has a strong possibility of having to go through a WIAC.


Another reason is the time frame of that awesome thing Gordan posted, if you go back just 2 more years and include 2001 and 2002,  You get two more CCIW teams into the Final Four, a 13-4 record and two 3rd place finishes.