Top 25 talk

[cardinalpride]

St. Thomas had a 20-5 in-region winning region, however, which is actually better ... go figure ... than a 16-5 regional record.

Remember that these first-round single games are essentially 8-9 games -- the difference between the two teams is going to be minor. But the differences are usually visible if you get the facts right.

Pat, wouldn't you agree an 8-9 game should be played on a neutral site?  Not have one team travel over 300 miles to play a road game in the 1st round.

In the Division III tournament, you have to be prepared to face good teams on the road.  I've watched IWU get sent to #1 Wash U in 2003 Round 2, #1 Hanover in 2004 Round 2, and 25-0 Lawrence in 2006 Round 3.  You can complain about your draw, or you can go out and win the game...as IWU did in all 3 above.  (If you can't get by St. Thomas on the road, you're probably not going to win at Lawrence.)

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

[cardinalpride]

St. Thomas had a 20-5 in-region winning region, however, which is actually better ... go figure ... than a 16-5 regional record.

Remember that these first-round single games are essentially 8-9 games -- the difference between the two teams is going to be minor. But the differences are usually visible if you get the facts right.

Pat, wouldn't you agree an 8-9 game should be played on a neutral site?  Not have one team travel over 300 miles to play a road game in the 1st round.

In the Division III tournament, you have to be prepared to face good teams on the road.  I've watched IWU get sent to #1 Wash U in 2003 Round 2, #1 Hanover in 2004 Round 2, and 25-0 Lawrence in 2006 Round 3.  You can complain about your draw, or you can go out and win the game...as IWU did in all 3 above.  (If you can't get by St. Thomas on the road, you're probably not going to win at Lawrence.)

NCC should be grateful that the CCIW had gone to the post-season format and that the NCAA gave D3 the extra Pool C bids.  In 2005, there is a good chance that they would have been sitting at home!

FYI, Mr. Turner, NCC didn't get a pool C bid.  They earned an automatic bid by winning the CCIW tournament!  IWU would have been sitting at home had it not been for additional pool c bids. 

[David Collinge]

NCC should be grateful that the CCIW had gone to the post-season format and that the NCAA gave D3 the extra Pool C bids.  In 2005, there is a good chance that they would have been sitting at home!

FYI, Mr. Turner, NCC didn't get a pool C bid.  They earned an automatic bid by winning the CCIW tournament!  IWU would have been sitting at home had it not been for additional pool c bids. 

You missed the first part of Ralph's statement.  NCC got a Pool A bid because the CCIW went to a post-season tournament format.  Had it not been for that tournament, Augustana would have gotten the Pool A bid, and NCC would have been a Pool C candidate.  That's where the extra C bids would have helped NCC's cause.

[Mr. Ypsi]

CP,

Ralph was indicating that without the tourney (and therefore the A), NCC would have had to rely on a C, and both NCC and IWU would have been sitting at home without the expansion.

[Ralph Turner]

St. Thomas had a 20-5 in-region winning region, however, which is actually better ... go figure ... than a 16-5 regional record.

Remember that these first-round single games are essentially 8-9 games -- the difference between the two teams is going to be minor. But the differences are usually visible if you get the facts right.

Pat, wouldn't you agree an 8-9 game should be played on a neutral site?  Not have one team travel over 300 miles to play a road game in the 1st round.

In the Division III tournament, you have to be prepared to face good teams on the road.  I've watched IWU get sent to #1 Wash U in 2003 Round 2, #1 Hanover in 2004 Round 2, and 25-0 Lawrence in 2006 Round 3.  You can complain about your draw, or you can go out and win the game...as IWU did in all 3 above.  (If you can't get by St. Thomas on the road, you're probably not going to win at Lawrence.)

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

And deny the Tommies a home playoff game!!!   

Cardinalpride, you are providing the chance for the old timers to talk about the way that it was back in the good ol' days of only 48 bids and the "away-home-bye" format, in 2005!  The old thinking was:

1) Which 16 teams deserve a bye?  Lawrence

2) Of those left, which 16 deserve a Home Game?  St Thomas

3) Who should be glad that they are in the tourney?  Okay, North Central!  Let's send them to St Thomas.  They won their conference. 

Thirty-two of the 48 teams got to host a playoff game!  That was the "bennie" under the old system.

Last year (2006),  St Thomas won their conference.  They were a Pool A bid.  North Central was a Pool C bid, in the expanded playoffs.  It was a no-brainer for everyone else.

...

Thanks guys, I got called away. before I could finish...

Cardinal,  before the decision to go to CCIW post-season tourney in 2006, we would get "doctoral dissertation quality" essays in Bracketology by the CCIW braintrust (Titan Q, Mr Ypsi, Sager, etc.) on the pros and cons of the CCIW post-season tourney.

I hope that every year, that the CCIW gets 1) its fair shake at hosting a Regional, 2) another team gets its fair shake at playing close before its fans, and that if it gets a third, then that team gets to make noise in another bracket and proudly carry the CCIW standard.  Those are my principles for any conference. 

+1 karma, Cardinal Pride, you are gonna learn a lot about the proud CCIW conference traditions.

[Pat Coleman]

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

It's not the next day. There was a day off in between.

All I'm saying is that, somehow, D-III teams have managed to survive this format for years. Many teams have managed to win two games on the road in the first two rounds.

[cardinalpride]

St. Thomas had a 20-5 in-region winning region, however, which is actually better ... go figure ... than a 16-5 regional record.

Remember that these first-round single games are essentially 8-9 games -- the difference between the two teams is going to be minor. But the differences are usually visible if you get the facts right.

Pat, wouldn't you agree an 8-9 game should be played on a neutral site?  Not have one team travel over 300 miles to play a road game in the 1st round.

In the Division III tournament, you have to be prepared to face good teams on the road.  I've watched IWU get sent to #1 Wash U in 2003 Round 2, #1 Hanover in 2004 Round 2, and 25-0 Lawrence in 2006 Round 3.  You can complain about your draw, or you can go out and win the game...as IWU did in all 3 above.  (If you can't get by St. Thomas on the road, you're probably not going to win at Lawrence.)

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

And deny the Tommies a home playoff game!!!   

Cardinalpride, you are providing the chance for the old timers to talk about the way that it was back in the good ol' days of only 48 bids and the "away-home-bye" format, in 2005!  The old thinking was:

1) Which 16 teams deserve a bye?  Lawrence

2) Of those left, which 16 deserve a Home Game?  St Thomas

3) Who should be glad that they are in the tourney?  Okay, North Central!  Let's send them to St Thomas.  They won their conference.  D

Thirty-two of the 48 teams got to host a playoff game!  That was the "bennie" under the old system.

Last year (2006),  St Thomas won their conference.  They were a Pool A bid.  North Central was a Pool C bid, in the expanded playoffs.  It was a no-brainer for everyone else.

...

Thanks guys, I got called away. before I could finish...

Cardinal,  before the decision to go to CCIW post-season tourney in 2006, we would get "doctoral dissertation quality" essays in Bracketology by the CCIW braintrust (Titan Q, Mr Ypsi, Sager, etc.) on the pros and cons of the CCIW post-season tourney.

I hope that every year, that the CCIW gets 1) its fair shake at hosting a Regional, 2) another team gets its fair shake at playing close before its fans, and that if it gets a third, then that team gets to make noise in another bracket and proudly carry the CCIW standard.  Those are my principles for any conference. 

+1 karma, Cardinal Pride, you are gonna learn a lot about the proud CCIW conference traditions.

Well, Mr. Turner, they should have sent NCC to Hope and let them play Calvin in the 1st round and sent Lacrosse or Stout to St. Thomas.  Or Better yet send NCC to UW-W and let them play Carrol.  IWU could have went to St. Thomas since by definition they were the third team to get in, and who has more CCIW tradition to showcase than the mighty Titans.  Oh, that's right, the NCAA wouldn't have done that because of the 500 mile rule.  I know you remember that rule because it used to be the 400 mile rule.  IWU could've flew to the land of 10,000 lakes and got there in 1&1/2 hrs, but we all know the NCAA didn't want to pay for that expense don't we!

Also, Mr. Turner, I already know about the tradition of the CCIW conference.  I'm a proud former student-athlete in the CCIW and won a national and numerous CCIW titles while competing in/for this conference.  Thanks for the sarcasm as well as the karma point!  

[cardinalpride]

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

It's not the next day. There was a day off in between.

All I'm saying is that, somehow, D-III teams have managed to survive this format for years. Many teams have managed to win two games on the road in the first two rounds.

Sorry for the confusion Pat.  By "next day", I meant travel time not actually playing the game.  Besides, just because the DIII format has always been this way doesn't make it right or fair to the invited schools.  The format is supposed to get better over the years.

[AndOne]

Q, All I'm saying is that game could have been played at Lawrence, a neutral site, since the winner had to travel there anyway a day later.  Why should any school be put in the  position to travel 7hrs to play a road game and have to travel another 4-5hrs to play another road game the next day if they win.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

It's not the next day. There was a day off in between.

All I'm saying is that, somehow, D-III teams have managed to survive this format for years. Many teams have managed to win two games on the road in the first two rounds.

Sorry for the confusion Pat.  By "next day", I meant travel time not actually playing the game.  Besides, just because the DIII format has always been this way doesn't make it right or fair to the invited schools.  The format is supposed to get better over the years.

"The format is supposed to get better over the years."
Isn't that what I said previously? (Not trying to steal your thunder Cardinalpride---just reinforcing it!)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on Today at 02:08:52 pm
Quote from: AndOne on Today at 01:48:49 pm
Quote from: Pat Coleman on Today at 12:23:58 pm
Quote from: cardinalpride on Today at 10:30:53 am
Quote from: Pat Coleman on Today at 02:42:21 am
St. Thomas had a 20-5 in-region winning region, however, which is actually better ... go figure ... than a 16-5 regional record.

Remember that these first-round single games are essentially 8-9 games -- the difference between the two teams is going to be minor. But the differences are usually visible if you get the facts right.
Pat, wouldn't you agree an 8-9 game should be played on a neutral site?  Not have one team travel over 300 miles to play a road game in the 1st round.

That's not the way the tournament it set up. None of the 8-9 games are currently played on neutral floors.

Maybe thats something that should be looked at. After all the season long hard work involved in qualifying for the tournament, I'm sure you wouldn't your team to be sent over 400 miles away (404 to be exact) for its first round game. Its pretty hard to get many fans/supporters to a location 7 hours away, especially on a weeknight when people would have to miss at least 2 days of work to be reasonably able to attend the game. Its one thing to have to be able to win on the road. Its quite another to have to be able to do it during the 1st round when it sure seems many much more convenient scheduling options are available.

Why? That would be the way the game has been played for more than a decade. This is Division III, you know, not Division I. As we get fewer and fewer byes we are moving away from that setup but it has been the status quo in Division III for many years.

Sometimes the "status quo" is exactly what should be looked at as far as making any possible improvements.
I'm not talking about wholesale changes, but how often have you seen the NCAA do something that seems to make little or no sense?
Maybe the product can't be improved, but Division III or not, don't we all want it to be the best it can be. I just don't think with some of the tournament scheduling seen last year that such was the case.

[Ralph Turner]

Cardinal, congratulations on the CCIW and National championships.  From the data that I could glean from your posts, I did not know that.

The karma point was to indicate no malice!

I guess that we will agree to disagree.

(Now you can understand how jaded my following ASC football has made me over the past decade.  For you occasional fans of D3football, the 2002 post-season saw ASC Champion/ #5 ranked/ #3 South Region ranked UMHB Crusdaers sent to SCAC Champ/ #4 ranked/ #2 South Region Ranked Trinity Tigers in the first round.  This year, we saw #3 South Region Ranked HSU sent back to #2 South Region Ranked UMHB for a first round game.  Both teams were in the second half of the Top 10 (That board is currently down.  Sorry that I cannot be more precise).  Therefore a #9 regional seed going to a #8 regional seed just doesn't seem to unusual.)

[AndOne]

Cardinal,  before the decision to go to CCIW post-season tourney in 2006, we would get "doctoral dissertation quality" essays in Bracketology by the CCIW braintrust (Titan Q, Mr Ypsi, Sager, etc.) on the pros and cons of the CCIW post-season tourney.

Titan Q, Mr. Ypsi, & Sager-------

Don't you guys feel just super having been appointed as "the CCIW braintrust" by no less than Mr. Turner?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Cardinal,  before the decision to go to CCIW post-season tourney in 2006, we would get "doctoral dissertation quality" essays in Bracketology by the CCIW braintrust (Titan Q, Mr Ypsi, Sager, etc.) on the pros and cons of the CCIW post-season tourney.

Titan Q, Mr. Ypsi, & Sager-------

Don't you guys feel just super having been appointed as "the CCIW braintrust" by no less than Mr. Turner?

This would wreak havoc on my admiriation for Teddy Roosevelt as the original "Trust Buster"!  Fortunately, Q, Greg, and I so rarely agree on anything that we cannot be termed a classic 'trust'!

[Though I am certainly honored to be lumped together with two HoFers!]

[Gregory Sager]

Cardinal,  before the decision to go to CCIW post-season tourney in 2006, we would get "doctoral dissertation quality" essays in Bracketology by the CCIW braintrust (Titan Q, Mr Ypsi, Sager, etc.) on the pros and cons of the CCIW post-season tourney.

Titan Q, Mr. Ypsi, & Sager-------

Don't you guys feel just super having been appointed as "the CCIW braintrust" by no less than Mr. Turner?

Actually, yeah ... I do. When it comes to the national D3 scene, Ralph really knows his stuff. Plus, he's got mad skills when it comes to text formatting for Posting Up graphs.

[David Collinge]

#7 Wittenberg survives a major scare in Gambier, beating Kenyon 72-67 in OT.  Witt's sophomore wing Mark Caraway hit an NBA three with 0:00.5 left just to force the overtime.  Kenyon falls to 5-7, Witt moves to 10-2.

[Coach C]

I am generally a supporter of playing tournament games in a 'live' gymnasium.  What I mean by that is that I HATE neutral site games.  I think that the NCAA should do everything possible to contest the first 2 rounds in the home gym of the higher seeded team.  That's not really what happens now, but it's the best case and I thnk we have to keep staing that it's the best case, lest it be lost as a goal.

Right now we have a sytem that has improved, but still does not select the best teams to the tournament and then does even less to properly select seeds the actually indicate the quality of the teams playing.  Until the NCAA fixes that porblem, we can argue until the bovines return to the barn about which game should have been where.  The plain fact is that the system isn't fair and it isn't just.

Ok - soapbox time over.

DC - nice job on jumping up to the front page.  I await your notes eagerly each week.

Best,

C