Top 25 talk

[keith45]

and imho, Aurora could play with the WIAC on a nuetral court

Keith, how many times have you seen Aurora and WIAC teams play?  Exactly.  It sounds like you are watching the stat sheets because I saw the Aurora/Edgewood game, and Aurora got beat by the better team.  Edgewood is playing more and more like a WIAC team (which shouldn't be a surprise because their coach coached in the WIAC), but they just don't have the overall talent right now to compete on a nightly basis with WIAC teams, neather does Aurora.     

Over the past few years, I've seen all the teams in both conferences, and there is no comparison.  Aurora would be lucky to be in the middle of the WIAC.   

Maybe Aurora should play the WIAC teams like other NathCon teams to really see how they match up.  I guess we'll never know because I don't see them scheduling WIAC competition.  Get over it, Aurora is lucky to even be in the top 20, and they certainly do not deserve to be in the top 10 until they start playing some tougher teams.  The voters are doing a good job, so quit complaining about their ranking. 

Plattbacker....
Was I supposed to answer that question, or accept your answer to the question? I'll try answering it first. I have seen almost every WIAC team play in the past few years. Additionally, I have played against a few of them, both in my college years and after, as a member of a traveling squad. I know a few of the coaches personally, and some assistants both still in the WIAC and a few who left the WIAC. I am VERY familiar with both Edgewoods program and Auroras. I've seen about 80% of Aurora's games this year.
And I agree with you that AU should schedule some WIAC schools..but please note that the majority of the NATHCON schools that do schedule WIAC schools are in Wisconsin and had these games scheduled for a while. Check back in 1-2 seasons, when the grind of a 22 game (or whatever it is) conference schedule sets in, and the home and homes have been satisfied.
This topic has been talked about enough, in my opinion.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

RIC beat Iona in the preseason, so it's not an official d1 victory, but they were good enough in the preseason to beat the team that turns out to be the crappiest one in d1.

[plattbacker]

Keith,

This is a Top 25 board, and you think Aurora is getting the shaft.  I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.  BTW: I apologize for assuming you have not watched Aurora.

Since I have been watching WIAC b-ball for a couple decades, I still think your claim that Aurora could play with these teams is absurd.  I've seen every team in the NathCon this year, and Aurora is beating mediocre talent, plain and simple.  I agree with the pollsters regarding their ranking.

If Aurora does well in the tourney, I will eat the dessert of choice around here (humble pie)  .     

[Pat Coleman]

Discussing the merits of UMHB made me think of a question I had earlier this week for Top 25 voters. I can't remember if I read it here or heard it on hoopsville, but someone said they considered who would win on a neutral court when ranking teams.

Do most voters give that a lot of consideration?  In my opinion that should be considered after more measurable criteria like won/loss record, strength of schedule, quality wins and bad losses. Although I think it is necessary sometimes to separate close teams, I would be hesitant because that brings in bias, particularly in DIII when it is hard to see all the top teams play. Then you are voting on what you think rather what you see on paper.

Just my opinion but I was interested in what voters used to come up with their rankings?

I don't think win/loss record is a be-all and end-all for two teams halfway across the country from each other with no common opponents. There are far too many teams in Division III and competition is far too localized for that to be instructive. Your 14-3 may not be better than someone else's 12-6 or it may be better than someone else's 17-1. That's what the human voters are here to filter.

I think our track record is excellent. I'm just fine with whatever method each of the 25 voters uses to come up with their ballot.

[golden_dome]

I don't think win/loss record is a be-all and end-all for two teams halfway across the country from each other with no common opponents. There are far too many teams in Division III and competition is far too localized for that to be instructive. Your 14-3 may not be better than someone else's 12-6 or it may be better than someone else's 17-1. That's what the human voters are here to filter.

I think our track record is excellent. I'm just fine with whatever method each of the 25 voters uses to come up with their ballot.

I'm not trying to suggest the poll is flawed, on the contrary I think you guys do a great job with it. Ranking DIII teams that rarely play outside of their region is a dificult task and your Top 25 usually produces the teams that perform best in the NCAA tourney. Won/loss record is not be-all and end-all, but I do think it has to be looked at if a team has a big out of conference win to validate it like UMHB's over VWU.

I was just curious if you gave the voters certain rules or criteria to use when they vote and you answered that.

[Pat Coleman]

Yes. Indeed, no, there are no set criteria. I want the voters to rank which teams they think are the best in Division III, from 1-25.

[diehardfan]

If Aurora does well in the tourney, I will eat the dessert of choice around here (humble pie)  .     

Heeey, I thought the dessert of choice around here was cookies.

Some really great discussion going on this board in the last few days! Please allow me to weigh in on a few things.

I basically never found the LMC board worth stopping by even when I was mostly interested in the regional scene. This is both cause their posters were inflammatory , and because generally (with a few exceptions) even the best teams in that conference were relatively irrelevant come playoff team. A great in-conference record in the NAthCon just isn't going to be inspiring to me (or most other people) the way a flawless NIIC showing would have. I personally think it's really a shame for those better schools that they ALL had to combine into one conference... especially since if they continue to play a home and away series with every conference member, it will leave very little room for the better teams to get out and play the top local teams in other conferences.

The top of the NIIC teams were always pretty good though, IMHO. Aurora and Benedictine were always great early non-conference gauges for the CCIW teams (and other teams like Clarke have also been fairly good in recent years). Both of those squads have been a little down in the last couple of years, but it would be nice to see them back up, so I am definitely rooting for Aurora to do well - makes all the local games between the West Suburb Chicagoland schools a whole lot more fun. They never had a ton of playoff success, but that's more due to getting paired with the CCIW in early rounds than being a bad conference in the national perspective. I'm not sure they've earned a higher ranking yet, but that doesn't mean I am not rooting for them... just have some healthy questions like probably a lot of voters at this point. A lack of a high ranking does NOT mean everyone is out to get them. Can we please calm down and let them earn their ranking on the court?

[diehardfan]

St. Thomas's ranking is a little uncomfortably high, IMHO. I'm pretty sure no MIAC team has gotten past the Elite Eight in the last decade (correct me of I'm wrong though!). That means that unless St. Thomas is consistently playing like they are the best MIAC team since D3hoops.com was founded (or the entire rest of the top of the league is a notch down, I suppose, since I have been feeling like that a little), their ranking makes me a little nervous... especially when they hit #3. If I was lucky enough (or deserving enough for that matter) to be a voter, I would probably put them more in an 8-11 range, just from when I got to seem them out here in Cali and their results thus far. In my mind they would be on the lower end of that when they and their Preseason AA are playing inconsistently, as they have at times this season. Don't get me wrong, I think they're a very good team, and their 05-06 D3hoops.com All West Region guard Bryan Schnettler is very good, good enough that he will make teams pay every single time they overcompensate on defense to try to contain Rosefelt. On the season he's shooting 47% from behind the arc. Last week he was 14-of-24 (58.3%) from 3-point land! What do you do against a team that has that much of an inside and outside threat? It's hard to not rank a team high that has two legitimate AA contenders. The problem is that I haven't been around long enough to compare this St. Thomas team to the GA team that was so strong. Maybe I can enlist a MIAC poster to come over and do that. Hmm...

[Pat Coleman]

Gustavus played in the title game in 2003. Nearly won. Kind of an unfortunate call at the end didn't help.

[diehardfan]

Thanks. That lessens my point a little. And obviously proves that I wasn't at the Final Four till 2004. But there's probably still some merit to what I said somewhere. Anyhow, I asked the MIAC board to do some comparing and contrasting to that GA team, so I guess we'll see if anyone bites.

[diehardfan]

Incidentally, based on the above discussion about the opposing team in their most important game this season, I would subsequently have put Oxy much more in the range that Oxy now is than they were last week. Even last week before I saw them lose to Redlands, I was a little squeamish about Oxy's #15 ranking. Since few SCIAC teams have ever made playoff runs, it's hard to justify a #15 poll ranking just from a close loss to a St. Thomas school that I think is ranked a little high. I'm much more comfortable with where they are this week. Oxy also has a great frontcourt-backcourt duo in Sam Beatty and Connor Whitman. Not quite at the Rosefelt-Schnettler level, but pretty close, and Whitman is only a Jr.

As the resident SCIAC poster on this board, I'll just add that I'm not sure that Redlands has earned Top 25 votes yet, but I do think it's a great thing that they're on people's radar screens. If they can play consistently like they did against Oxy last week they are a legitimate playoff team.

[piperinsider]

I might get some flack from other MIAC posters but I just don't see this team going far come post-season. Yes, they have Ike, Schnettler and Mike Keating, but their point guard isn't one that does many things great. He doesn't turnover the ball often, which is his greatest achievement. I know the Tommies don't need him to score (he averages 4 ppg), but I think when it comes down to a big game a team needs a solid PG and I feel UST has a slight above average one.

The bench is another question mark. The bench averages only 14 points a game, and they are very young and inexperienced at the varsity level.

Personally I think St. John's has a better chance of advancing farther in the tournament if they are selected. They are a more balanced team.

[Willy Wonka]

As another MIAC poster (and player on the '03 GAC team) who stills gets to games twice a week, I have no reservations in saying that those Gustie team would have beaten this UST squad. In fact, I said recently on the MIAC board that I thought this particular UST team would be the worst conference champion in the last 10 years - assuming they beat out the SJU team who already beat them once, obviously. Plus, the MIAC is way down this year, which further sways their ranking.

The Tommies are basically a 3-pronged attack, as PI mentioned. If any of them gets hurt/in foul trouble/plays poorly, there's a very good chance another good team will beat them, making for a short tourney run. The Tommie bench is stocked full of solid role players, but doesn't have a player who will come in and make an impact offensively - or at least no one has emerged in that role, yet.

I'm clearly biased when comparing them to the '02/03, '03/04 GAC teams, but it isn't close IMO. Those GAC teams had multiple players off the bench capable of scoring 15+ on a particular night, including future league MVP and '03 Final Four MVP Dougie Fresh (to say nothing of the starters), while UST relies purely on its three studs. While the Tommies are solid at defense, the latter of the two GAC teams set the MIAC record for points against, allowing just 54 a game in league play on 38% shooting. UST is allowing a league-best 61 and 40%.

Myself and nearly every non-Tommie poster on the MIAC boards agreed UST was overrated at #3 about three weeks ago...but you don't want to get me started on the validity of Pat's rankings 

[bethelguy]

I'll share my thoughts on UST.  If they were playing a 3 on 3 tournament I would pick them to beat absolutely anybody (accounting for 52.4 ppg).  The rest of their team are pieces that fit nicely into the overall puzzle. 

As compared to recent MIAC teams that have been successful UST is not as deep but as stated their top 3 are better than any of the recent GAC teams or even Augsburg when they had Devean George playing.  Their offense compliments their stars very well and everyone plays solid team D.  Comparing them to the GAC team that lost to Williams in the Final several years ago is tough.  UST's top 3 is certainly better but 4-10 would heavily favor GAC. 

C - Isaac Rosefelt - D1 transfer who was MIAC MVP last season.  Rosefelt is lanky 6'9" who averages 17 ppg, almost 10 rpg and 2 blocks per game.  I'd wager that he is All-American material.
PF - Mike Keating - another D1 transfer who was rather average last season but has emerged this year to be a force (16.4 ppg and 9 rpg).
SG - Bryan Schnettler - is the school's and probably will be the MIAC's all time leader in 3 pointers.  Bryan is quick with an even quicker shot.  When he is on he does not miss regardless of your defensive positioning.  19 ppg including 4 3's per game.

After that it gets thinner but these guys know their roles.

Lonnie Robinson is a JR who hardly played last season.  But is averaging 8 ppg this year.
PG - Andy Dwyer -
PG - Brett Tuma - talented soph

If they have a weakness it is at the PG spot.  The Tommies graduated a talented PG and their floor leader from last season, along with a starting F and their 6 and 7 guys off bench.  Depth is always talked about as an issued for the Tommies but it rarely seems to actually matter (as witnessed as UST outlasted Bethel 2 OT a couple weeks ago). 

Outside of their big 3, they don't have anybody who can beat you on their own (as Wonka mentioned).  But so far nobody has been able to slow down more than 1 at a time and that has made the very tough to beat.  GAC holds Keating to 7 but Schnettler/Rosefelt combine for 44, that is a familiar story for this team.

They will be a matchup problem for anybody they face in the tournament.  River Falls took them to OT and LAX beat them, but remember that Rosefelt did not play in those games.  No doubt in my mind that Rosefelt is playing and they dominate RF and do not lose to LAX.

I hope this paints some sort of a picture...

[Titan Q]

I say this as someone who's been guilty of stereotyping conferences, but...

I recommend not getting too caught up in trying to evaluate a team based on how its league has faired in past tournaments.  A few years back, I was surprised when Lawrence nearly knocked off UW-Stevens Point @ the Puget Sound sectional.  I guess I just assumed the Pointers were better because they were from the WIAC and Lawrence was from a league that hadn't done anything in the tournament (the MWC). 

Based on past Final Four results, the NESCAC hadn't given us much reason to think Williams was the favorite in 2003, but the Ephs got it done.....Virginia Wesleyan beat two Division III powerhouses last year in Salem after many years of ODAC struggles.....Catholic surprised a lot of people in 2001.  I think surprises not only happen like this in Salem, they also happen up and down the Top 25.  Programs we don't think of as "Top 10" have a couple great recruiting classes and all the sudden are excellent.  I think the Illinois Wesleyan women are in this boat right now, for example.

While factoring in strength of schedule is key to any discussion of top teams - and strength of conference is a central part of that discussion - I just encourage everyone to not assume that a team like Aurora is a couple notches below the WIAC or CCIW's best (just as I'd say we shouldn't assume they are better simply because their record is so gaudy).  In basketball, it just takes 1 or 2 great players to go along with the solid role player types, and I know Aurora has a great player in Larry Welton...he is one of the best big guys in Division III.

I follow a "power conference" (D1 term) and have a natural bias towards leagues like the CCIW, WIAC, and OAC, but from following D3hoops.com and watching teams from a lot of different leagues play the last decade or so, I have a much different perspective than I did before this site was around....or even 5 years ago.  I've worked pretty hard the last few years to get to know leagues like the MWC, NWC and SCIAC, for example.  While it is hard to argue the overall strength of the leagues generally regarded as the best in D3, teams from all kinds of conferences can "come out of nowhere" and be great.