Top 25 talk

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

I don't know why you need a lot of mutual opponents, or any. You have Cornerstone and their network of teams with their collective strength, and Hope with the same. The connection is the matchup; there doesn't really need to be another one. It just doesn't make sense to throw out data. The NCAA does it because they want to discourage playing a lot of out of division teams. I don't think it's a good thing there either. If you play a good D2 or NAIA and win, you should get credit for that. And if you lose to a good team, that shouldn't hurt you much either (like how people hold it against teams like Hope in the D3 poll).

Just the fact that the efficiency rankings are holding onto CMS is suspect, especially with how poor their schedule rating is. Some of the SOS assessments don't seem right either. But similar to the CMS issue is where a team like Ramapo is rated...their schedule is correctly assessed as poor, but it doesn't seem to impact their ranking that much. It really doesn't seem like the schedule is being adjusted for nearly enough. Do you really think Ramapo is top 30 in the nation on both offense and defense? And on the other end, if North Park has a top 10 schedule, shouldn't they be ranked higher in total?

I'm also not sure that efficiency rankings get you what you really want all the time. Like St. Norbert being ranked top 100 in offensive efficiency. Well that's great, but the slow tempo is still gonna lead to being more likely to lose when you're the better team. I think Massey does a better job of accounting for that.

[KnightSlappy]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

I don't know why you need a lot of mutual opponents, or any. You have Cornerstone and their network of teams with their collective strength, and Hope with the same. The connection is the matchup; there doesn't really need to be another one. It just doesn't make sense to throw out data. The NCAA does it because they want to discourage playing a lot of out of division teams. I don't think it's a good thing there either. If you play a good D2 or NAIA and win, you should get credit for that. And if you lose to a good team, that shouldn't hurt you much either (like how people hold it against teams like Hope in the D3 poll).

Just the fact that the efficiency rankings are holding onto CMS is suspect, especially with how poor their schedule rating is. Some of the SOS assessments don't seem right either. But similar to the CMS issue is where a team like Ramapo is rated...their schedule is correctly assessed as poor, but it doesn't seem to impact their ranking that much. It really doesn't seem like the schedule is being adjusted for nearly enough. Do you really think Ramapo is top 30 in the nation on both offense and defense? And on the other end, if North Park has a top 10 schedule, shouldn't they be ranked higher in total?

I'm also not sure that efficiency rankings get you what you really want all the time. Like St. Norbert being ranked top 100 in offensive efficiency. Well that's great, but the slow tempo is still gonna lead to being more likely to lose when you're the better team. I think Massey does a better job of accounting for that.

I think the worlds of NAIA and D3 are intertwined enough that including the games improves the data set (NAIA-II and D3 have played each other 50 times this year).

I would love to include those games in the efficiency rankings, but it would take a lot more programming work than I'm willing to put in. It's more than just counting those games (D3 vs. NAIA) it would mean counting all NAIA vs. NAIA games as well.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

I don't know why you need a lot of mutual opponents, or any. You have Cornerstone and their network of teams with their collective strength, and Hope with the same. The connection is the matchup; there doesn't really need to be another one. It just doesn't make sense to throw out data. The NCAA does it because they want to discourage playing a lot of out of division teams. I don't think it's a good thing there either. If you play a good D2 or NAIA and win, you should get credit for that. And if you lose to a good team, that shouldn't hurt you much either (like how people hold it against teams like Hope in the D3 poll).

Just the fact that the efficiency rankings are holding onto CMS is suspect, especially with how poor their schedule rating is. Some of the SOS assessments don't seem right either. But similar to the CMS issue is where a team like Ramapo is rated...their schedule is correctly assessed as poor, but it doesn't seem to impact their ranking that much. It really doesn't seem like the schedule is being adjusted for nearly enough. Do you really think Ramapo is top 30 in the nation on both offense and defense? And on the other end, if North Park has a top 10 schedule, shouldn't they be ranked higher in total?

I'm also not sure that efficiency rankings get you what you really want all the time. Like St. Norbert being ranked top 100 in offensive efficiency. Well that's great, but the slow tempo is still gonna lead to being more likely to lose when you're the better team. I think Massey does a better job of accounting for that.

I think the worlds of NAIA and D3 are intertwined enough that including the games improves the data set (NAIA-II and D3 have played each other 50 times this year).

I would love to include those games in the efficiency rankings, but it would take a lot more programming work than I'm willing to put in. It's more than just counting those games (D3 vs. NAIA) it would mean counting all NAIA vs. NAIA games as well.

Right, in no way am I saying you necessarily should do that or that what you have done doesn't have any value without doing so.

I'd be curious to know how you did what you have done.

[AndOne]

At the Cruzin' Classic in Fort Lauderdale, #20 North Central defeated #19 Wartburg in double OT, 94-91. The Cardinals needed a buzzer-beater trey to send the game into overtime and a trey with four seconds left in the first overtime to send the game into a second extra session. The Knights missed a trey attempt in the final second of the second OT that would've sent it into a third.

Yes, and they did it without their best all-around player, and last year's D3Hoops Regional Rookie of the Year, Connor Raridon who is out with a broken hand.

[AndOne]

UW-Oshkosh 58
#7-St. Norbert 45

Not that St. Norbert isn't a good team, but their lofty ranking is often boosted by the fact that they play in a really bad conference. If they can post a good non conference record, they are usually going to be highly ranked the rest of the year because their conference presents them with virtually no competition. The second best team in their conference the last few years, Carroll, transfered to the CCIW this year so now it's even easier for St. Norbert to slice through the rest of the Midwest Conference. St.N also benefits from being close enough to be able to recruit Catholic kids from the entire Chicagoland area, a major producer of college talent as well, of course, as recruiting close by Green Bay, and the entire state of Wisconsin, especially the Catholic population thereof. St. Norb's 2 losses have come when they have played schools from a strong conference. This year, that's the WIAC which has given St. Norbert it's two losses.

Another team that enjoys the same advantage is Benedictine. A team with 3 very good players to be sure, but another team that is continually propped up by playing in a terrible conference. The Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference is probably even worse overall than St. Norbert's Midwest Conference.
And, again, With BU being located in the western suburbs, they are right in the middle of the metropolitan Chicagoland area. One of the entire Chicagoland's top producers of talent, which also happens to be a private Catholic (BU is a Catholic institution) HS, is Benet Academy which is located directly across the street from Benedictine.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

The other issue is that, for all intents and purposes, these non-d3 games are no different than an exhibition.  Yes, they count in the overall record on the archive of the team's website, but there's no difference in a win vs a loss.  As a voter, I tend to discount them almost entirely.  You can never be sure how the players or the coach approach the game when it doesn't matter one whit for their season - especially for teams with NCAA Tournament ambitions.

[smedindy]

UW-Oshkosh 58
#7-St. Norbert 45

Not that St. Norbert isn't a good team, but their lofty ranking is often boosted by the fact that they play in a really bad conference. If they can post a good non conference record, they are usually going to be highly ranked the rest of the year because their conference presents them with virtually no competition. The second best team in their conference the last few years, Carroll, transfered to the CCIW this year so now it's even easier for St. Norbert to slice through the rest of the Midwest Conference. St.N also benefits from being close enough to be able to recruit Catholic kids from the entire Chicagoland area, a major producer of college talent as well, of course, as recruiting close by Green Bay, and the entire state of Wisconsin, especially the Catholic population thereof. St. Norb's 2 losses have come when they have played schools from a strong conference. This year, that's the WIAC which has given St. Norbert it's two losses.

Another team that enjoys the same advantage is Benedictine. A team with 3 very good players to be sure, but another team that is continually propped up by playing in a terrible conference. The Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference is probably even worse overall than St. Norbert's Midwest Conference.
And, again, With BU being located in the western suburbs, they are right in the middle of the metropolitan Chicagoland area. One of the entire Chicagoland's top producers of talent, which also happens to be a private Catholic (BU is a Catholic institution) HS, is Benet Academy which is located directly across the street from Benedictine.

You'd think that's already baked into the pollsters calculus though? This has been a truth for years.

[smedindy]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

The other issue is that, for all intents and purposes, these non-d3 games are no different than an exhibition.  Yes, they count in the overall record on the archive of the team's website, but there's no difference in a win vs a loss.  As a voter, I tend to discount them almost entirely.  You can never be sure how the players or the coach approach the game when it doesn't matter one whit for their season - especially for teams with NCAA Tournament ambitions.

They may change their rotations a bit to give more experience, but I can tell you from watching D2 vs. NAIA or D3 at CWU is that the NAIA and D3 teams take them pretty darn seriously, exhibition or countable game. Same with the D2 school - I've heard the coaches' ire for lapses in play.

When CWU faces a D-1 opponent they're not just there to get in a good sweat.

When you hit the court as a college athlete or coach, you compete.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

The other issue is that, for all intents and purposes, these non-d3 games are no different than an exhibition.  Yes, they count in the overall record on the archive of the team's website, but there's no difference in a win vs a loss.  As a voter, I tend to discount them almost entirely.  You can never be sure how the players or the coach approach the game when it doesn't matter one whit for their season - especially for teams with NCAA Tournament ambitions.

They may change their rotations a bit to give more experience, but I can tell you from watching D2 vs. NAIA or D3 at CWU is that the NAIA and D3 teams take them pretty darn seriously, exhibition or countable game.

When you hit the court as a college athlete or coach, you compete.

I'm not saying they don't take them seriously, but there are some things you can't control.  A rivalry game is almost always close no matter how good each team is, because there's an added pressure that can't really be chosen or quantified.  I just mean the intangibles of the situation are super hard to predict - especially when it's nationwide.  I think you have to make some consideration (albeit not the same consideration) for games on opening night or at travel tournaments over the holidays.  The unusual circumstances make those games much harder to use as a gauge than a conference or close regional game might be.

[AndOne]

UW-Oshkosh 58
#7-St. Norbert 45

Not that St. Norbert isn't a good team, but their lofty ranking is often boosted by the fact that they play in a really bad conference. If they can post a good non conference record, they are usually going to be highly ranked the rest of the year because their conference presents them with virtually no competition. The second best team in their conference the last few years, Carroll, transfered to the CCIW this year so now it's even easier for St. Norbert to slice through the rest of the Midwest Conference. St.N also benefits from being close enough to be able to recruit Catholic kids from the entire Chicagoland area, a major producer of college talent as well, of course, as recruiting close by Green Bay, and the entire state of Wisconsin, especially the Catholic population thereof. St. Norb's 2 losses have come when they have played schools from a strong conference. This year, that's the WIAC which has given St. Norbert it's two losses.

Another team that enjoys the same advantage is Benedictine. A team with 3 very good players to be sure, but another team that is continually propped up by playing in a terrible conference. The Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference is probably even worse overall than St. Norbert's Midwest Conference.
And, again, With BU being located in the western suburbs, they are right in the middle of the metropolitan Chicagoland area. One of the entire Chicagoland's top producers of talent, which also happens to be a private Catholic (BU is a Catholic institution) HS, is Benet Academy which is located directly across the street from Benedictine.

You'd think that's already baked into the pollsters calculus though? This has been a truth for years.

Yes, you'd think. But logical thought and reality are often widely differentiating variables!   

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I think because Massey rates in all divisions, it's fine. One of the strengths of it for lower division work, actually.
I don't think you should throw out results for that reason.
You can certainly do this with efficiency rankings but something seems off about those. Maybe it's because they're throwing out non-D3 results, or maybe something else. Still interesting to look at.

I disagree. Personally, that fact that Massey counts non D3 games is by far the thing I like least about it. There are just too few mutual opponents to accurately quantify Hope's win against Aquinas or their loss to Cornerstone. Furthermore, when the NCAA begins doing regional rankings, they'll (kind of) throw these game out...

What is it that "seems off"? With the exception of CMS, the two are very similar. Heck, once again if you rule out CMS as an early season anomaly, Marrietta, Neumann, Babson, Salisbury, Hope, Whitman, River Falls, CNU, and Bethel feels pretty similar and perhaps better ordered than Massey's numbers.

The other issue is that, for all intents and purposes, these non-d3 games are no different than an exhibition.  Yes, they count in the overall record on the archive of the team's website, but there's no difference in a win vs a loss.  As a voter, I tend to discount them almost entirely.  You can never be sure how the players or the coach approach the game when it doesn't matter one whit for their season - especially for teams with NCAA Tournament ambitions.

They may change their rotations a bit to give more experience, but I can tell you from watching D2 vs. NAIA or D3 at CWU is that the NAIA and D3 teams take them pretty darn seriously, exhibition or countable game.

When you hit the court as a college athlete or coach, you compete.

I'm not saying they don't take them seriously, but there are some things you can't control.  A rivalry game is almost always close no matter how good each team is, because there's an added pressure that can't really be chosen or quantified.  I just mean the intangibles of the situation are super hard to predict - especially when it's nationwide.  I think you have to make some consideration (albeit not the same consideration) for games on opening night or at travel tournaments over the holidays.  The unusual circumstances make those games much harder to use as a gauge than a conference or close regional game might be.

It's not like it's baseball where you might hold back your better pitching.

If anything, teams are going to be more motivated to try to knock off a higher division team. They aren't just going to lay down because it's not a D3 team.

[AO]

Minnesota has 7 pretty good teams, but their schedules are a little tougher across the board, partly due to access to the Wisconsin teams for non-cons.

The MIAC has traditionally been overrated, and it still is as a whole. But St. Thomas, over the past decade, has been one of the best programs in the entire division, and the Tommies have the hardware to prove it. Just don't let that fool you into thinking that the Tommies are reflective of the whole league.

What league or leagues should be rated higher than the MIAC and who is doing the ratings?  I guess you could say since they only play 5 non-conference games you have less confidence in their ranking, but that should tend to make them look worse than they are as often as it makes them look better.  The lack of post-season success for MIAC teams not named St. Thomas can also be partly blamed on this 20 game conference schedule which brings everyone's SOS down to .500 and makes it tougher to get at-large bids.  Bethel has to be one of the best teams in the d3hoops.com era to have never made it to the tourney.  The Royals have 3 Massey top 25 finishes in the last 8 years. 

[AndOne]

I think the CCIW, WIAC, and NESCAC are generally regarded as the top D3 basketball conferences.

[nescac1]

Yeah, I think WIAC, CCIW and NESCAC are a clear top three in some order.

And, I think most folks would also put UAA, OAC, and ODAC as the next three, in some order.

MIAC I'd say is part of a pretty big bunch of strong conferences positioned underneath those six (NWC, NJAC, NEWMAC, MIAA, SUNYAC, Centennial, I'm sure there are a few others in the mix that I'm not thinking of).  But there is no way to put it in the top six, as good as St. Thomas is as an individual program. 

[gordonmann]

Funny you should ask...

http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2016/11/2016-conference-ranking-part-1

I had the MIAC ranked fifth behind the CCIW, NESCAC, WIAC, UAA and ODAC.