Top 25 talk

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2016-17/week5

So new poll is out if anyone cares.

4 new entrants, 2 NJAC teams and 2 NESCAC teams.

Nah, no east coast bias at all.

[Mr. Ypsi]

We'll make a culturally cutting-edge kind of guy of you yet, Chuck.

I'd like to see the action plan on that.

I checked out the link that Greg had.  Quite frankly, I have no interest in being a 'cutting-edge kind of guy'!  I'm quite content with Casablanca as the all-time greatest movie, the Beatles as the best rock-group ever, AND having the neighbors' kids play on my front lawn whenever they want to!

Peace out, dudes!

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Point is for all the bluster about New England, there's not a lot of reason to think they're actually the best, especially if you're not talking about Amherst being that standard-bearer.

Are there people here saying New England is the best? I think the current status of the discussion is as follows:

ElRetornodelEspencio: Babson plays a bunch of tomato cans.
Others: New England is better than that.

I'm sure others have read more about this than I have, but I think the 1981-82 Hamilton team is the one that had the best shot at a national title, had the NESCAC presidents allowed them to play.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MBB2/C/Men's%20Basketball_Men's_Division%20III_1982_267_Hamilton%20College.pdf
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Their two best rebounders were 6-4 and 6-1. Surely you don't think they had anything for Wabash.

UW-Stevens Point's best rebounders where 6-1 and 6-0 when they won the national championship two years ago... the second two were 6-4 and 6-4... not to mention the fact, teams were far smaller in the 80s than they are now. Not sure what point you are trying to make in an attempt to dismiss Hamilton.

Missing the point as usual...

What does 2010s Stevens Point have to do with 1982?

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2016-17/week5

So new poll is out if anyone cares.

4 new entrants, 2 NJAC teams and 2 NESCAC teams.

No, it can't be, those conferences don't play tough competition.   

Sometimes, I just can't help myself.

What does being ranked have to do with playing tough competition? Obviously they arent connected at all.

Swing and a miss.

[Gregory Sager]

I hope it is a consolation to the 6 seniors on the 1996 team (IMO probably the greatest IWU team ever except maybe for one of the Jack Sikma teams)

I just shake my head in wonderment that you have an opinion about the comparative strength of IWU teams that you never saw. This is all secondhand stuff to you, and yet you put an IMO next to your assessment of these teams?

There are other sources of information besides first-hand observation.  I also have opinions about Civil War events, and even events in ancient Rome and Greece!   Even if the information is secondhand, it is still my (consolidated and considered) opinion, so why wouldn't I put IMO?  (BTW, I should add the 1970 team, which I DID see MANY times, and the next-to-last team ever to go undefeated in the CCIW, as maybe better than 1996.)

Bob's our resident expert on Illinois Wesleyan men's basketball, and you never see him make declarations like that about IWU teams that he didn't see. He always qualifies any statements he makes about, say, the 1987-88 team with the preface, "I never saw them, but ..." or "Long-time fans tell me ...". But to each his own, I guess.

Greg,

Certainly you're not discounting the role research can play in the formulation of an opinion about a historical event, sporting or otherwise.
I suspect you, yourself often do research before regaling us with one of your frequent lectures on an obscure game or season.

Of course I'm not discounting it. But research is one thing. Making a subjective conclusion about the comparative abilities of teams is something else entirely, whether it's buttressed by research or not. Take a look at the context here, Mark. This was a conversational thread about teams that were not necessarily contemporaneous (e.g., the undefeated UW-Platteville teams of 1994-95 and 1997-98 versus the 1995-96 Rowan team, and the various IWU teams versus each other). Research will only take you just so far in such a conversation. Thus, these are necessarily subjective comparisons, and the customary way to make a subjective assertion is to put oneself forth as an eyewitness. I know how good Team A was, because I saw them myself. How can you put down Team B when you've never even seen them? That's the way such conversations go on all the time, whether here or on barstools.

Additionally, I think you need to give Ypsi the benefit of the doubt here. i sense he isn't in the habit of just throwing out a totally unsupported opinion about something he didn't personally witness without doing some degree of research on the subject beforehand.

I didn't accuse him of saying something that was unsupported. In fact, what he's basically done is to repeat what various other long-time Titans fans have said on CCIW Chat when the topic of which IWU team was the best came up, since those other fans were constant eyewitnesses of the program who didn't have thirty-year gaps in following the Titans. If remembering those opinions of others counts as "research" prior to regurgitating them as his own, then so be it. But my point is, how does someone pass them off as his own opinions, then, in the very same forum in which they were first presented by others? They're really the opinions of those other posters who saw those teams. At least say as much, as Bob does.

I'm beginning to sound like a bully here, and that's really not what I'm trying to do. I'm not looking to bash Chuck (although it's probably too late for me to say that). I'm just saying that a certain amount of discretion is called for when making authoritative-sounding assertions about teams you've never seen. And we've all done it from time to time (some of us more often than others). I admitted myself yesterday in this room that I shouldn't have dismissed Endicott out of hand when I haven't seen the Gulls play yet this season.

Lastly, with regard to Bob never failing to include qualifying language when posting about a Wesleyan event that he did witness, I think those of us who have been reading his posts for any length of time pretty much know exactly what his opinion on any Wesleyan subject is, qualifying language or not. And this is not a criticism, but rather, an observation.

You're casting too wide a net on Bob here, Mark. This isn't about his overall boosterism with regard to his alma mater. This is about an in-house comparison between various Titans teams. And give him credit for his integrity on this score; he does not make claims to firsthand knowledge when he makes those comparisons regarding Titans teams he never saw.

[Pat Coleman]

I'm just saying that a certain amount of discretion is called for when making authoritative-sounding assertions about teams you've never seen.

I think you could be more precise here and call for discretion about talking about a team where you didn't know the results of the season until reading them in the alumni magazine months later.

[Gregory Sager]

Pat, in case I've never told you this, I do appreciate it when you allow me to play the good cop by your taking on the role of the bad cop.

[sac]

I'm pretty sure every CCIW program but Millikin and Carroll(first year in the league) have been ranked in the top 10 at some time in d3hoops.com polls history.  This is the polls 18th year.

I can't imagine there are a lot of conference that can point to 7 different programs being in the top 10 at one point or another.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Point is for all the bluster about New England, there's not a lot of reason to think they're actually the best, especially if you're not talking about Amherst being that standard-bearer.

Are there people here saying New England is the best? I think the current status of the discussion is as follows:

ElRetornodelEspencio: Babson plays a bunch of tomato cans.
Others: New England is better than that.

I'm sure others have read more about this than I have, but I think the 1981-82 Hamilton team is the one that had the best shot at a national title, had the NESCAC presidents allowed them to play.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MBB2/C/Men's%20Basketball_Men's_Division%20III_1982_267_Hamilton%20College.pdf
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Their two best rebounders were 6-4 and 6-1. Surely you don't think they had anything for Wabash.

UW-Stevens Point's best rebounders where 6-1 and 6-0 when they won the national championship two years ago... the second two were 6-4 and 6-4... not to mention the fact, teams were far smaller in the 80s than they are now. Not sure what point you are trying to make in an attempt to dismiss Hamilton.

Missing the point as usual...

What does 2010s Stevens Point have to do with 1982?

You questioned whether a team whose best rebounders were 6'4" and 6'1" were capable of beating a top team... Dave provided evidence that they can indeed by mentioning a team with even shorter rebounders who have won a title.

[Pat Coleman]

The implication is that those guys may not have had much effect against the eventual national champ of that year. The ESPN broadcast of that title game is on our 1982 NCAA Tournament page.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Point is for all the bluster about New England, there's not a lot of reason to think they're actually the best, especially if you're not talking about Amherst being that standard-bearer.

Are there people here saying New England is the best? I think the current status of the discussion is as follows:

ElRetornodelEspencio: Babson plays a bunch of tomato cans.
Others: New England is better than that.

I'm sure others have read more about this than I have, but I think the 1981-82 Hamilton team is the one that had the best shot at a national title, had the NESCAC presidents allowed them to play.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MBB2/C/Men's%20Basketball_Men's_Division%20III_1982_267_Hamilton%20College.pdf
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Their two best rebounders were 6-4 and 6-1. Surely you don't think they had anything for Wabash.

UW-Stevens Point's best rebounders where 6-1 and 6-0 when they won the national championship two years ago... the second two were 6-4 and 6-4... not to mention the fact, teams were far smaller in the 80s than they are now. Not sure what point you are trying to make in an attempt to dismiss Hamilton.

Missing the point as usual...

What does 2010s Stevens Point have to do with 1982?

You questioned whether a team whose best rebounders were 6'4" and 6'1" were capable of beating a top team... Dave provided evidence that they can indeed by mentioning a team with even shorter rebounders who have won a title.

Never said a thing about beating an unnamed top team. I think it is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely that a team playing Lilliputians at forward would have had anything for the 1982 champions.

Potsdam had decent size for D3, was the defending champions. And they got steamrolled.

What in the world happened to Potsdam basketball, anyway?

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

The implication is that those guys may not have had much effect against the eventual national champ of that year. The ESPN broadcast of that title game is on our 1982 NCAA Tournament page.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Quite right. I can't believe all these so-called experts here that have so much shade to throw at me didn't know who Pete Metzelaars is. I assume the only D3 basketball champion to play in the championship of a major US sport. One of the best players in D3 history. Maybe the best ever center.

This board isn't going to live this one down for a long time. You all just got exposed.

Plus the game was pre 3-point era, pre shot clock. I'm not sure anyone that's ever played in the championship game since would have beaten Wabash the way they played under those rules. I just don't see a way you could deal with someone like Metzelaars under those conditions. He had great hands and was a great passer to boot. A similar (but shorter, and arguably less good shooter) D1 player led a MAC team to the Elite 8. People on this board would have written Wabash off when they started 5-4, probably.

[AndOne]

Lastly, with regard to Bob never failing to include qualifying language when posting about a Wesleyan event that he did witness, I think those of us who have been reading his posts for any length of time pretty much know exactly what his opinion on any Wesleyan subject is, qualifying language or not. And this is not a criticism, but rather, an observation.

You're casting too wide a net on Bob here, Mark. This isn't about his overall boosterism with regard to his alma mater. This is about an in-house comparison between various Titans teams. And give him credit for his integrity on this score; he does not make claims to firsthand knowledge when he makes those comparisons regarding Titans teams he never saw.

In all honesty, I was probably focusing more on Bob's boundless boosterism of all things Green, as is to be expected. And, as I indicated, I was not criticizing, just relaying something commonly observed. 
No aspersions were even attempted to be cast in his direction regarding teams he may have commented about that he never saw so this was never a point of contention.

[ronk]

The implication is that those guys may not have had much effect against the eventual national champ of that year. The ESPN broadcast of that title game is on our 1982 NCAA Tournament page.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Pat,
  Does this mean that you don't have the broadcast of the 1983 championship game(Scranton-Wittenberg)? I have a VCR tape of it, but it would be easier to watch if there were an online version. Maybe, I should ask the Scranton SID if they have it in their archive. 

[Pat Coleman]

The implication is that those guys may not have had much effect against the eventual national champ of that year. The ESPN broadcast of that title game is on our 1982 NCAA Tournament page.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/1982

Pat,
  Does this mean that you don't have the broadcast of the 1983 championship game(Scranton-Wittenberg)? I have a VCR tape of it, but it would be easier to watch if there were an online version. Maybe, I should ask the Scranton SID if they have it in their archive.

I don't even have the 1982 one -- it's Wabash's YouTube video and we just embed it on the page. Would gladly embed other old title games if they are on YouTube.