Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

Greg - With due respect your entire response is replete with historical recitations.  Following your thinking -- Hamilton's prior 31 season records, Widener's storied past, North Central actually been one of the weaker programs in the CCIW over the past decade and a half... In fact, North Central's legacy pales in comparison to those of Hamilton and Widener -- both recently and long-term (your words not mine) -- are not relevant as you seem to be arguing the case for -- a team should be judged upon the current season, not any season or stretch of seasons that came before it.

You're not following the gist of my post, IWM. I made those points about Hamilton, Widener, and North Central specifically to refute their being valid examples of Chuck's argument, which is that historical performance ought to be taken into consideration when evaluating teams. He had their historical performances backwards, overrating North Central's and underrating Hamilton's and Widener's, and I simply pointed that out.

The histories of Hamilton, Widener, and North Central (up to and including the 2004-05 season) shouldn't be relevant to the poll. What I was doing was pointing out that Chuck was using bad examples for his argument, not agreeing with his argument. Think of it as David Carradine in Kung Fu knocking the gun out of an outlaw's hand. As a Shaolin monk, Kwai-Chang Caine doesn't believe in using guns, and he would thus never use the outlaw's gun once he's disarmed him. But he's for darn sure not going to let the guy use it against him or anyone else. 

We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree, unless you can do better than that.  You demonstrated that your knowledge of d3bb history is better than mine (but I already knew that!) - my examples were ill-chosen.  But, yes, I will assume at the outset of the season that Wooster is better than Eureka (based on history!), UNLESS they both prove otherwise.  And both starting 4-0 (has Eureka EVER started 4-0?) is NOT going to change my mind.  Even Wooster starting 0-4 and Eureka starting 4-0 will change my mind ONLY in the context of who did they play (which, of course, is history again).

Use Concordia (IL) as a better example for your purposes, as Eureka is actually 4-10 and came out of the gate by losing three of their first four games. CURF, by contrast, won their first three games this season -- and CURF is a school whose program is historically as bad, if not worse, than Eureka's.

So who would I have assumed was the better undefeated team back on Thanksgiving Day: 3-0 CURF or 2-0 Wooster? Well, Wooster, of course. That's in large part due to the fact that Wooster had beaten far better teams -- the Scots' win over Wisconsin-Stout alone was worth CURF's three wins combined. But I would've made the same assumption that you did that Wooster was much better than the Cougars based upon past history. But the point is ... so what? If you're a pollster, you don't send back a ballot to Pat that's filled out on the basis of assumptions (or at least you shouldn't, in my opinion). You send back a ballot that's filled out on the basis of the reams of hard data that Pat is sending you regarding how each of the top fifty (or hundred, or whatever) teams has performed to date this season.

While the results of a given season may EVENTUALLY disprove the assumption, generally speaking 'good' programs remain good and 'bad' programs remain bad.

No argument with you there. But, again, I don't see such assumptions as being germane to the polling process. I trust that Pat's voters are making their decisions based upon the actual performance on the court this season of each of those teams.

I suspect we agree that pre-season and early-season polls are somewhat pernicious in 'locking-in' this truism (or 'historical bias', as you prefer), but if Pat didn't do pre- and early-season polls, what the hell would we have to talk about in December?!

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, one that Pat and I opened up about six or seven years ago. (How long has it been since we had that whole early-season-poll debate, Pat?) We can hash it out again if you'd like, since you missed the first go-round. But by dabbling in poll esoterica so we might be taxing people's patience. I've been known to do that on Posting Up from time to time.  

[Briton Backer]

With respect to Albion/Witt #1 debate (assuming both teams win Saturday), it seems to me that the 9 voters who thought Hope was the best team in the country going into last night, after seeing Albion literally spank Hope, have got to give the Britons their votes.  Add those 9 to the 2 they got last week and 11 no. 1 votes for the Britons is going to definitely put them in the running.

You also have to factor in that any voter who doesn't put Albion at 1, really has to put them at worst at 2.  Albion just dominated the prior #2, was ranked 4 and beat this exact #3 Wooster team last year (an Albion team people in the MIAA were saying had "dropped off").  In any event, the only team out there a voter could justify puting over either Albion or Witt is Albion or Witt.  Therefore, on the 25 ballots, they should be 1-2 in some order (preferably alphabetical).  If that is the case, it will be a race for the 13 #1 votes needed to take first.

All just fun talk however, as we know the real #1 will be decided on the court in Salem.

[sac]

Albion over Hope
Albion over Baldwin-Wallace
Baldwin-Wallace over Wooster
Wooster over Wittenberg

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Albion over Hope
Albion over Baldwin-Wallace
Baldwin-Wallace over Wooster
Wooster over Wittenberg

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

That's what I've been saying all week.  I know Wittenberg gets a lot of respect from a lot of people, and deservedly so, but what have they done so far that makes them a legitimate #1 team?  They've beaten quite a few teams in the 20-30 rankings.  I have been impressed with their defensive abilities, I just don't see a dominant team here.  The same goes for Wooster (just to show I'm not biased).  I would have probably said the same for Albion before the beating last night.

[Pat Coleman]

I think the fact that Wooster only beat Wittenberg on a last-second shot in a home game doesn't scream out that Wooster is absolutely the better team. What's that game like with no homecourt advantage? That's what we're trying to determine.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I agree with Pat there, that its very hard to tell who is better between Witt and Woo, however, my contention that neither one has been impressive enough to earn the first place spot in the poll is still valid.  I think some other teams have impressed me more with better schedules.  Again, this is personal opinion and i'm certainly not saying they don't belong amongst the top teams.  I just don't think either school has put out a resume that blows the other contenders away.

[Pat Coleman]

I'm not sure anyone anywhere has put out a resume that blows the others away.

[TheFence]

I'm not saying it is a no brainer but you'd have say Wooster is better team than Witt right now.  Wooster beat Witt albeit by a last second shot and at home.  This of course may change down the line but today with both teams having 1 "quality loss" you'd have to say that Wooster is the better team.  They beat them head to head isn't that the best possible tiebreaker.

[Pat Coleman]

If you were compiling standings, yes. But we're compiling rankings.

[Greek Tragedy]

Since Lawrence and North Central are the last remaining unbeaten teams, they should then be ranked #1 and #2 by default. 

[Titan Q]

I do not think there is a clear-cut #1 right now.  I'm very impressed by Albion's convincing win over Hope last night, but to be honest, I look at the "complete body of work" for both Albion and Hope, and I'm not any more sold on these two than I am on Wittenberg, Wooster, or Illinois Wesleyan...or in my mind, North Central for that matter.   

Regarding Hope...

Hope beat Elmhurst by 17 in the opener at DeVos Fieldhouse.  Elmhurst led 44-43 with 10:50 to play in the game and Hope led by just 5 with 5:30 to play.  The Dutchmen finished the game on a 16-4 run.  I wasn't there, but from looking at the running play-by-play, it appears to have been a very competitive game for 35 minutes.  Again, the first game at DeVos in front of a crowd listed at 3201, in other words I'm pretty convinced Hope was playing with a lot of passion in that one and didn't just sleepwalk past non-conference Elmhurst for 35 minutes...

http://elmhurst.edu/~athletic/Home/M-Basket/stats/2005-2006/melm01.htm

While I personally viewed Hope as the #2 team before last night, I have to ask -- who have they beaten besides unranked Elmhurst??

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?school=Hope&team=m

Hope beat Cornerstone by 20 on a neutral court and Aquinas by 1.  Perennial NAIA II power Cornerstone (11-8) is down this year...fellow NAIA II Aquinas is 10-9.  John Carroll is 9-5. Wheaton and Carthage have shown they can play with good teams, but those aren't "signature wins" this year obviously.

Regarding Albion...

Elmhurst played at Albion on December 29.  It was 65-64 Albion with 2:29 to play...from the 14:34 mark of the 2nd to :29 remaining, Albion's biggest lead was 5 points.  Again, I wasn't there, but it looks like a game that came down to a few plays in the final couple of minutes and couple bounces of the ball.... 

http://elmhurst.edu/~athletic/Home/M-Basket/stats/2005-2006/melm11.htm


Elmhurst, ranked #15 at the time of the Hope game and #16 at the time of the Albion game, dropped out of the D3hoops.com Top 25 after losing a CCIW home game to Millikin - the same Millikin team that took IWU to overtime at MU last night (and yes, the same Millikin team that lost to 3-11 North Park at home Monday) - and losing at #10 Augustana by 4 points 3 days later.

Now, do I think Albion played with more passion and energy and with more focus last night vs Hope in a huge MIAA game than they did vs non-conference opponent Elmhurst?  Absolutely.  You all know I'm quick to remind all of us to keep the "human element" of the game in mind when we get too sucked into the comparative scores game.  But at the same time, it sure appears to me that unranked Elmhurst can play with both Hope and Albion...especially considering those games were played on the home floors of the MIAA teams. 

CCIW followers would probably collectively rank the league right now:

T1. Illinois Wesleyan
T1. North Central
3. Augustana
4. Elmhurst

(IWU plays at Elmhurst Saturday.)

It is not that I don't think Albion is a #1 candidate, but I'm still not seeing anything that makes them any better than the other candidates.

[MWCSID2005]

The Midwest Conference will webcast four contests with live audio and video free of charge on Friday, January 13.

The matchups feature Grinnell College at Lawrence University and Lake Forest College at Ripon College. The women's contests tip-off at 5:30 p.m. with the men's contests to follow at 7:30 p.m. Links to the webcast are available at www.midwestconference.org and on the athletic websites of each participating institution.

The release linked below gives more information on the webcast, as well as previews for each contest.

http://www.midwestconference.org/wbasketball/WebStreamJan12.pdf

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I wouldn't say there is a clear-cut number one either.  I'm just saying that I can't put much faith in any of these team's schedules to this point.  You made the arguments for Hope (of whom I was skeptical well before last night's game) and Albion.  Allow me to put my two cents in for Wooster and Wittenberg.

Concerning Wooster:

They beat Wittenberg, but we have to discount that for this discussion.  The win over Stout is getting less impressive every week.  They lost their game to Baldwin-Wallace, the only other big time team, which leaves their best win as either the OT game at Earlham or neutral court victories over New Jersey or Methodist.  No one else should have or did, come close.

Concerning Wittenberg:

They beat a decent Tufts team, but it was neutral and the first game of the season, so you can't tell much of anything.  Two points over Rochester in Rochester is about what can be expected.  Transylvania is #25 this week, but probably shouldn't be and Ohio Northern somehow turned an OT win over JCU into a national rep overnight.  Their best win may very well be over Cedarville, who isn't even in d3.

In my view Albion's had the better go of things, but honestly, IWU makes the most sense.  They lost that game to NCC, but I've seen many a heavy favorite overlook the first conference game.  Their schedule has been solid all the way through (with the exception of IC).  Wabash, Hanover, WashU, and UPS all have nine wins or more and even Chicago has been better than expected.

I know a lot of the posters can't say it too loudly because they are IWU fans, but if we're analyzing things this way, to me, IWU is the only team that makes sense. (Although, NCC's schedule has not been the cupcake every has accused them of... Augie's has been a lot easier.)

[Gregory Sager]

I agree with you about Illinois Wesleyan to a point, Hoops Fan, but I think that the thing that's holding them back is the fact that they lost at home. Home losses carry more weight than do road losses. Also, I don't think that the voters will be inclined to give the Titans much credit for eking out a one-point win over 4-9, 1-2 Carthage and an overtime decision over 8-6, 1-2 Millikin in their two most recent games. I suspect that Wesleyan's play since New Year's Day has eroded some of the impressiveness of their November and December performances in the minds of the pollsters. Of course, I'm just guessing at that.

(A win at Elmhurst on Saturday could probably go a long way to restoring the Titans in the good graces of the pollsters, especially if it's by a convincing margin.)

Transylvania lost last night to 8-6, 1-2 Mt. St. Joe, so they're not going to be in the Top 25 next week. If they hold serve on their home court and beat #21 Bluffton on Saturday, they'll likely drag the Beavers down with them.

I like what Q had to say about the human element, although I'm a bit more inclined than him to give Albion cred for horsewhipping Hope so badly. Every game lost by one of the top teams thus far has been a close game, except for Albion's (which is anomalous, as I'll explain in a moment). The domination of the Dutch by Albion is even more impressive than the mere fact that the Brits won the game.

The other thing working in Albion's favor is the calendar. The lone loss for the Brits was a bad one, an 88-77 decision on their own floor to a Michigan-Dearborn team that's only 4-10 this season. UMD led by ten at the half in that game and pretty much held the Brits at bay, as Albion never got any closer than eight with :56 left.

However, that was the first game of the year, played on Opening Day (Nov. 18). It was a classic illustration of the idea that a D3 team shouldn't play an NAIA team in their first game, since it was already the fifth game of the season for UMD. More importantly, the calendar and Albion have both moved on and the relevance of that game has receded. The Britons have rattled off a dozen wins since then. The losses suffered by the other contenders are all at least three weeks more recent than the Albion loss, with the least fresh (Wittenberg's loss to Wooster on December 10) coming in the seventh game of the year for the Tigers.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Carthage isn't holding weight with me, mostly because their record is skewed poorly by superior competition.  Sure, they aren't as good as their fans want you to think, but they are much better than their record.

I think I mentioned Transy had no business being in the top 25 and I generally thrown out the first game of the year for most teams when considering ranking, especially when its to a non d3 opponent who's on their fifth game, like you pointed out.  I never thought Hope deserved to be as high as they were, so the Albion win only solidified my position.  In fact the only thing that game proved to me was that Albion was worthy of being considered in the top 5 at all.