Top 25 talk

[Greek Tragedy]

And in terms of the poster poll...

1) I don't think it's any where near as legitimate. Pat's poll is obviously better... that goes without saying. It doesn't have as many people, it doesn't have as good national coverage, and the pollsters don't get the good packet of information that Pat makes when making their selections.

It's not supposed to be legit at all.  There aren't any publications out there that have "Stevens Point #1 in the D3hoops.com POSTER'S POLL, WOW."  It was simply for fun.  I'll take full responsibility for any problems the poll has since it was my idea in the first place.  It just gave the posters on this site their own opinion on their Top 25, which basically is similar to Pat's actual poll.  If it were just me coming up with my own Top 25, there probably would be 2-5 teams that wouldn't be in my poll because I would have NO IDEA about them (Johns Hopkins, basically any East Coast team not in the ODAC or NJAC and NESCAC). 

So, yeah...I don't think it's a sin to be posting comments about the poster's poll in the Top 25 board.  No one would ever try to make the poster's poll better or more legit that Pat's poll.

[diehardfan]

Gordon, thanks for the response.  I will consider your impressions next week on the Posters' Poll.

Did anyone else find that terribly funny after the heated discussion? When I read that I laughed out loud!!! 

And in terms of the poster poll...

1) I don't think it's any where near as legitimate. Pat's poll is obviously better... that goes without saying. It doesn't have as many people, it doesn't have as good national coverage, and the pollsters don't get the good packet of information that Pat makes when making their selections.

It's not supposed to be legit at all.  There aren't any publications out there that have "Stevens Point #1 in the D3hoops.com POSTER'S POLL, WOW."  It was simply for fun.  I'll take full responsibility for any problems the poll has since it was my idea in the first place.  It just gave the posters on this site their own opinion on their Top 25, which basically is similar to Pat's actual poll.  If it were just me coming up with my own Top 25, there probably would be 2-5 teams that wouldn't be in my poll because I would have NO IDEA about them (Johns Hopkins, basically any East Coast team not in the ODAC or NJAC and NESCAC). 

So, yeah...I don't think it's a sin to be posting comments about the poster's poll in the Top 25 board.  No one would ever try to make the poster's poll better or more legit that Pat's poll.

I don't think it's a good idea to take that post out of context.... my comments on the issue have to stand together... this makes it seem like I'm against discussing the poster poll on this board, which I'm obviously not....

3) They do relate, and it's at least as appropriate to talk about it here as garbage plates.

etc.

[David Collinge]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "heated" discussion; at least it's not heated on my end.  I just don't like the concept of the posters' poll, and for the reasons I stated above I'd just as soon it not bleed into this room.  My opinion is my own, I've kept it to myself for the past year, and I doubt I'll ever have cause to mention it again.  I didn't and don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

[Ralph Turner]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "heated" discussion; at least it's not heated on my end.  I just don't like the concept of the posters' poll, and for the reasons I stated above I'd just as soon it not bleed into this room.  My opinion is my own, I've kept it to myself for the past year, and I doubt I'll ever have cause to mention it again.  I didn't and don't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Okay, thanks!

[sac]

Is it just me or does it seem like no one wants to be ranked  in the middle to bottom half of the top 25.  We already have 4 losers and its only Thursday.

[notamensa]

thanks for the week 5 link, pat.

[David Collinge]

Is it just me or does it seem like no one wants to be ranked  in the middle to bottom half of the top 25.  We already have 4 losers and its only Thursday.

It's just you.    Of the five losses sustained by top 25 teams (four in your "middle to bottom half" sub-category), three were to other teams in the "middle to bottom half:"

Top 25 Schedules and Results, Jan. 8-14 (UPDATED with Wednesday scores):

#10 UW-Oshkosh (12-3) lost at #20 UW-La Crosse 48-47 and plays at UW-River Falls Sat.
#13 William Paterson (10-4) lost at New Jersey City 56-42 and hosts Ramapo Sat.
#18 Carthage (9-4) lost to #14 Elmhurst 72-62 and plays at #15 Augustana Sat.
#19 Johns Hopkins (11-2) lost to Haverford 64-59, plays at Ursinus Thu., and hosts Muhlenburg Sat.
#21 Wheaton (IL) (8-5) lost to #15 Augustana 74-69 and plays at North Park Sat.

So far this week, we're just two losses over the minimum.  That's a big improvement over last week; I think Averett alone had two losses to unranked teams by midweek.

[ecdubb420]

it looks like EC needs some representation in this forum.  thus, as long as they are in the top 25 (hopefully for the rest of the season).  My best attempt for being that voice will be made.
From reading this board, I'm glad to hear that so many people are taking EC seriously.  I have felt that they didn't make it to the NCAA tournament two years ago because they are a school that has historically has had well, no positive history.
Coach Scherer has a great thing working at Elmhurst and though the college (students and alumni) are taking a while to figure out they have had a top notch team for the past three seasons (not to mention 00-01) they will pack the place if this play continues.  I never would have dreamed of hearing all this buzz about EC when I started the radio coverage during the 03-04 season, but it is in much thanks to Scherer, Baines and also the institution as a whole (where everything is up, up, up), so in that case I may need to get used to it.
I'm just glad that over the last several years it appears that thanks to Giovanine, Raridon, Scherer and long standing kudos to Harris, that IWU may become just another talented team (instead of being THE TEAM) in the CCIW.
I know my knowledge may not be as vast as many of you out in d3 posting lore (aka, ready for the criticism), but I'll do what I can to represent EC and the CCIW to its fullest.

[Ralph Turner]

Top 25 update from the ASC in-game update board...

UTD24, Miss College 18 with 4:00 left.

The audiostream is available at

http://www.gochoctaws.com/index.asp?path=mbball

[Ralph Turner]

Miss College pulls away in the second half, 66-54.  MC has virtually locked up the ASC-tourney.  They have a 3 game lead over UT-D.

[David Collinge]

Top 25 Schedules and Results, Jan. 8-14 (UPDATED with some Friday scores):

#1 UW-Stevens Point (14-1) def. Lakeland 97-59 and won at UW-Eau Claire 77-43
#2 Amherst (13-0) won at Wesleyan 76-52, won at Tufts 96-92 (OT), and plays at #12 Bates Sat.
#3 St. Thomas (12-1) def. Augsburg 80-63, def. Gustavus Adolphus 74-57, and plays at Concordia-Moorhead Sat.
#4 Ohio Northern (12-2) won at Wilmington 63-62 and plays at John Carroll Sat.
#5 Wooster (12-2) won at Allegheny 97-87 and hosts Wabash Sat.
#6 Whitworth (13-0) hosts #17 Puget Sound Fri. and hosts Pacific Lutheran Sat.
#7 Virginia Wesleyan (11-2) plays at Lynchburg Sat.
#8 Wittenberg (12-2) won at Earlham 71-60 and plays at Hiram Sat.
#9 Mississippi College (12-1) def. Texas-Dallas 66-54 and hosts Texas-Tyler Sat.
#10 UW-Oshkosh (12-3) lost at #20 UW-La Crosse 48-47 and plays at UW-River Falls Sat.
#11 Hope (11-2) def. Albion 94-58 and plays at Calvin Sat.
#12 Bates (11-1) def. U. New England 90-46, lost to Trinity (CT) 68-63, and hosts #2 Amherst Sat.
#13 William Paterson (10-4) lost at New Jersey City 56-42 and hosts Ramapo Sat.
#14 Elmhurst (12-1) won at #18 Carthage 72-62 and hosts Illinois Wesleyan Sat.
#15 Augustana (11-3) won at #21 Wheaton (IL) 74-69 and hosts #18 Carthage Sat.
#16 Washington U. (11-1) won at Case Western Reserve 73-56 and plays at Emory Sun.
#17 Puget Sound (10-2) plays at #6 Whitworth Fri. and at Whitman Sat.
#18 Carthage (9-4) lost to #14 Elmhurst 72-62 and plays at #15 Augustana Sat.
#19 Johns Hopkins (12-2) lost to Haverford 64-59, won at Ursinus 66-50, and hosts Muhlenburg Sat.
#20 UW-La Crosse (10-4) def. #10 UW-Oshkosh 48-47 and plays at UW-Superior Sat.
#21 Wheaton (IL) (8-5) lost to #15 Augustana 74-69 and plays at North Park Sat.
#22 Occidental (8-3) def. Caltech 103-40 and hosts Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Sat.
#23 Worcester Polytech (11-1) won at Springfield 82-75, def. Babson 59-53, and plays at Clark Sat.
#24 NYU (11-1) plays at Brandeis Sat.
#25 Aurora (11-1) def. Dominican 90-66 and plays at Clarke Fri.

[Gregory Sager]

thanks for the week 5 link, pat.

Actually, thank you for mentioning it in the first place, notamensa. I too was wondering the other day what had happened to the Week 5 link, but I forgot to send Pat an e-mail about it.

Gordon, thanks for the response.  I will consider your impressions next week on the Posters' Poll.

Did anyone else find that terribly funny after the heated discussion? When I read that I laughed out loud!!! 

Ralph must've been watching a Baywatch rerun while he was typing that post.

From reading this board, I'm glad to hear that so many people are taking EC seriously.  I have felt that they didn't make it to the NCAA tournament two years ago because they are a school that has historically has had well, no positive history.

Actually, the reason why Elmhurst didn't make the 2004-05 tourney was because the Bluejays fell short in the five primary criteria used to determine Pool C berths. One of those criteria is regional winning percentage, and Elmhurst's .739 wasn't even close to being competitive with the regional winning percentages of the seven teams that were actually chosen for Pool C. History had nothing to do with the absence of the Bluejays from the '05 tourney.

Anyway, welcome to the Top 25 board. You're right, Elmhurst is long overdue to have a representative posting in the national rooms rather than just CCIW Chat.

[Ralph Turner]

Sac and I conducted our discussion of South Region vs Great Lakes Region teams via "Personal Message".

The South Region discussion began about post #1966. 

We discussed styles of play and hosting of the sectional as possible distinguishing attributes as to who made the Final Four. MissCollege SID Chris Brooks made the observation that the only "fly-in" team at the Sectionals (UWSP to UPS in 2004) to win the Tourney in the last 5 years was 2004 UW-SP.  All other "road teams" at the Sectionals had been bussed and that this might make the difference for crowd following and team distraction.

Sac and I continue from there.  (Please re-read the original thread as you wish.)

Ralph, I saw your post about McMurray v Calvin in 2000.  I thought I'd send a message since its gotten a little lost in there.  I didn't get to see that game but of course I've talked to many who were there.  I understand your points.

I guess we can agree to disagree, I've seen 3 sectionals involving 4 South region teams and in all cases they lost the first game and I strongly believe it was because of defense or a lack of.   In each case the GL teams were bigger, and more physical and played better overall defense.

1998  JCU over Hampden-Sydney
1998  Hope over Christopher Newport
2005 Calvin over Miss Coll
2006 Transylvania over Miss Coll.

In JCU and Hope's case they completely shut down their southern foes.  Hope was ahead 45-17 at halftime.  All four opponents vs the Southern team shot the ball very well and got a lot of easy baskets.


I guess until I see a team from the South Region beat a GL team, I'm always going to feel this way.

Despite the good looking records of the GL teams this year I really don't think there is an outstanding team this year so this is as good a year as any.  It will be a real battle to get to Salem and I'm sure the Sectional host will have a big advantage.

Here's hoping that its Hope and Miss Coll squaring off for Salem

My response back to sac...

Sac, Respectfully, may I bring this personal message intact to the Top 25 board?

My response would be to contrast the times that South Region teams have only made the Final Four 2 times, only once thru the Great Lakes (Hampden-Sydney in 1999), but can by winning versus the MidAtlantic and Atlantic as VWC did in 2006 and for that matter, Catholic from the Mid-Atlantic in 2001 going thru the Mid-Atlantic and the East.

Every other attempt by Maryville TN, Miss College, McMurry, Trinity 2003 has fallen short.  Trinity 2005 loses (tough) to UW-SP.  McMurry and CNU lost to WPU and Horace Jenkins in 2001.

Is there something about the physical mismatch that we South Region teams encounter when we hit the Great Lakes, and the only hope to overcome the physical mismatch is thru a style-of-play difference?

Sac's response to my request to post his reply...

Yeah sure why not (post these replies),

all I can tell you is from personal experience the GL teams I've seen beat the southern teams is there has been a physical size and physical play difference.

Just for comparison this year Hope is relatively small on its front line going 6-7, 6-4, 6-5 and will sub with 6-6, 6-5, 6-5 and 6-7, ......can Miss Coll match that?  I don't consider Hope a strong inside team from what I've seen.  My greatest worry about Hope's team is they will bump up against another GL team with a stronger and bigger inside game.

One thing you can be sure of with GL teams that make it to a sectional.......they've been tested for 2 solid weeks both in their conference tournaments and having to beat other GL teams in the first 2 rounds in typically very physical games.

You won't get any arguments from me about Mid-Atlantic/Atlantic  teams, Hope and Calvin have both thrashed teams from that region in the Final Four.

Can anyone else comment on a "size mismatch" that may require an alternate strategy to get past the Great Lakes teams?  Thanks.

[sac]

I will also add that all four South Region teams I've seen in Sectionals had to fly to their Sectional.  98 at Hope, 05 at Albion, 06 at Wittenberg.

[golden_dome]

Ralph, I saw your post about McMurray v Calvin in 2000.  I thought I'd send a message since its gotten a little lost in there.  I didn't get to see that game but of course I've talked to many who were there.  I understand your points.

I guess we can agree to disagree, I've seen 3 sectionals involving 4 South region teams and in all cases they lost the first game and I strongly believe it was because of defense or a lack of.   In each case the GL teams were bigger, and more physical and played better overall defense.

1998  JCU over Hampden-Sydney
1998  Hope over Christopher Newport
2005 Calvin over Miss Coll
2006 Transylvania over Miss Coll.

In JCU and Hope's case they completely shut down their southern foes.  Hope was ahead 45-17 at halftime.  All four opponents vs the Southern team shot the ball very well and got a lot of easy baskets.


I guess until I see a team from the South Region beat a GL team, I'm always going to feel this way.

Despite the good looking records of the GL teams this year I really don't think there is an outstanding team this year so this is as good a year as any.  It will be a real battle to get to Salem and I'm sure the Sectional host will have a big advantage.

Here's hoping that its Hope and Miss Coll squaring off for Salem

I just wanted to comment on this so I was not misunderstood before. Although I just don't think I would say it was strictly defense, I definitely do agree about the physical nature of those games. We usually rank among the top 10-15 teams in scoring defense and FG percentage defense but we had problems in those games adjusting to the physical nature of the players and the way the games were officiated, so I guess you could say that was the defense though I would probably say it is more style of play. Games are called closer in the south and there is less banging usually, more up and down the floor msot of the time.  I did not think last year's Transy game fit that mold though. Until we beat one of the GL teams there really is not much we can say. I have certainly been impressed with how the GL teams play the game, great fundamentally and they have a high basketball IQ. And its not like they aren't athletic because they are. I would just like a GL team to end up in the south one year to see what would happen. I have had enough cold weather.

Yeah sure why not (post these replies),

all I can tell you is from personal experience the GL teams I've seen beat the southern teams is there has been a physical size and physical play difference.

Just for comparison this year Hope is relatively small on its front line going 6-7, 6-4, 6-5 and will sub with 6-6, 6-5, 6-5 and 6-7, ......can Miss Coll match that?  I don't consider Hope a strong inside team from what I've seen.  My greatest worry about Hope's team is they will bump up against another GL team with a stronger and bigger inside game.

One thing you can be sure of with GL teams that make it to a sectional.......they've been tested for 2 solid weeks both in their conference tournaments and having to beat other GL teams in the first 2 rounds in typically very physical games.

You won't get any arguments from me about Mid-Atlantic/Atlantic  teams, Hope and Calvin have both thrashed teams from that region in the Final Four.

We are bigger this year than we have been. Our two forward spots are filled with 6-6 and 6-5 starters and 6-8, 6-7 off the bench. We are much bigger at guard going 6-8, 6-3 with 6-4, 6-3 off the bench. Tim Broomfield, a 6-8 guard, also goes inside sometimes so he is versatile. But I don't think it is really about length but the style of play. We have the players to play in a physical game and the experiences we have had up North have to help, but I would still like to see us in a less physical game that is more up and down the floor.

In my opinion, the GL teams consistently win because they play a physical style of game that is disciplined with few mistakes. Add to that very skilled players who know how to play the game and it becomes hard to beat them because they will certainly not beat themselves.