MBB: Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference

[frank_ezelle]

Op-Ed piece on the future of D-III and D-IV by Southwestern University's President Jake Schrum.

With it being Monday and in the upcoming lull before we get to the weekend games, maybe someone can fill me in a little more on this D-III and D-IV thing.  The link to the full story is in Ralph's quote above, but here is a cut and paste from the heart of the story:

"Thankfully, the NCAA created a division that recognized that some colleges and universities still put academics first choosing to concentrate on recruiting students who were scholars first and athletes second. "Scholar-athlete" is the term that most national liberal arts colleges use to describe their students who are more interested in graduating than in post-season competition.

Make no mistake, these young men and women are fierce competitors, but their educational achievements take precedent. After creating Division III for these students several years ago, the NCAA, this week at its annual meeting in Nashville, is debating the creation of Division IV.

Supposedly, some institutions have been allowed to join Division III who are not as committed to its original purpose as those who conceived of the idea. Presently those institutions who want to keep Division III more of a student-athlete model are being gently encouraged to create Division IV if they can't embrace those who have joined Division III but do not adhere as seriously to the scholar-athlete model as those who conceived of Division III.

Those of us who espouse the concept of Division III got here first, and this division was created for us. If some in our division can't abide by the structured guidelines demanded by a scholar-athlete, then they should leave Division III and be comfortable in a newly created Division IV."

After reading the above, I do find it very annoying that the NCAA wants to push the SCAC schools and others like them to a D4 level.  It really seems to discount the efforts of the athletes playing at that level.  We all know that even now the label D3 gives an impression of athletes and teams that are barely a step above high school, something we know to be false, but an impression held by the public in general.  The perception of teams at a D4 level would be even lower.

It also would follow that the trickle down effort of NCAA support gets less if it has to trickle down another level.  Will the current D3 schools become an NCAA after thought if they move down to the 4th level of the pyramid?  It just seems like this is a case of trying to squeeze a little bit more of the educational element out of the NCAA's.

Anyone with thoughts on this or additional input?

[Ralph Turner]

Oh, Frank....

We have about 80 pages of this stuff over the last 3 years on the Future of D-III message board!  I think that there is so much obfuscation on the issue that it takes careful reading to discern what is happening.

Which college president is not putting the education of his or her students ahead of the athletics?

Who is running basketball mills in D-III? 

Who is facilitating the incurrence of massive student college debt to have a winning football program?  MUC?  SJU?  Linfield?  Rowan? Millsaps?  Trinity?

Thanks for responding! 

[DPU3619]

I'm going to throw some really uninformed questions out there for the general public.  Feel free to provide answers that make my stupidity blatantly apparent. 

1.  What about certain (or all) SCAC schools make them good candidates to go to D4?  Their non-commitment to building athletic powerhouses?  Their commitment to athletic academic success coming first? 

2. Now I understand that we're in the infancy of such an issue, but are even the Trinity's and the DePauw's of the world (referring to those schools who historically finish well in the all-sports rankings) being talked about in this? 

[Old_Gold]

--I don't doubt that DePauw played great Sunday, as reflected by the win and the margin of victory.
--Would DePauw have beaten Millsaps on a neutral court if both teams are rested.  Maybe, maybe not.  We'll never know.
--How much did fatigue play into the game?  I don't know, especially since I didn't see the game.  All I have to go on is the observations of the board members from DePauw.  Such as the observations:
--Edrick Montgomery started off great and then he seemed to go into cruise control.  Hmmm, maybe he just lost interest in the game or maybe the 40 minutes against Centre was a factor.  I don't know.
--Millsaps looked great in a man-to-man and then they went to a zone and it let DePauw back into the game.  Apparently this was a big factor in the game and the DePauw victory.  Was it because of fatigue that they went to a zone? I don't know.
--The comment was made about DePauw outrunning such an athletic team as Millsaps.  I'm sure DePauw has some very athletic players, but again, the observaton makes it sound like Millsaps was a tired team.

I'm not saying that Millsaps is the better team--I haven't seen DePauw play this year so that would be a rediculous statement.  I'm just saying that DePauw had a fresher team thanks to being at home, having the easier game on Friday, and not having the hangover of a very difficult loss.  Given all the factors, it's not surprising that a team as good as DePauw ended up running away from a team as good as Millsaps in the second half.  I suspect it would have been a closer game throughout if it had been the Friday night game.  That doesn't seem like such a radical notion.

I was at the DPU-Saps game Sunday and I believe fatigue had much to do with the margin of victory, but probably not the outcome of the game. DePauw was the better team Sunday. The Tigers let the game get out of hand in the first 10 minutes or so. Lorenzo Bailey had 3 steals in the first 3 minutes that resulted in 3 layups. That's 6 points given up on poor ball handling. DePauw started working their way back into the game and were on top at the half by one. 
The halftime rest energized the Majors and they came back to challenge in the first few minutes.  Montgomery was visibly tired in the second half. I believe the zone was an attempt by Coach Wise to give his team some rest. It didn't work. DPU was all over the zone and hitting their treys.
A few other observations:
Millsaps is not a second half powerhouse.  Their team stats show they score about the same in the first half and second on average. DePauw is a second half team. They score more in the second half than the first.
DPU's bench put up 34 points to the Majors' 8. Depth was a big factor in the game.
Winning on the road is problematic for DIII athletes. However, they all have the same trips to make. All teams goals are to play in the NCAA tourney. No one (well, maybe Otterbein in 2003) gets to play all post season games on their home court, so overcoming the travel / fatigue is part of a great team's mission.
DPU plays an uptempo game. Our bigs run the floor as well as the guards. That style of play by both teams probably contributed to the fatigue. DPU had the subs to continue to run when Millsaps didn't.

In no way do I denigrate the effort or even the results of the Millsaps team this last weekend. Taking Centre to OT in Danville is a huge accomplishment. That worked in the Tigers' favor when a leg-heavy team played on our home court. Millsaps is the most athletic SCAC team I've seen in a while. Edrick is a beast in the post. Bailey was very impressive on both offense and defense. DPU's depth, rest, and shooting made the difference.  On a neutral court and with both teams rested... who knows.

[hendrixfan]

Op-Ed piece on the future of D-III and D-IV by Southwestern University's President Jake Schrum.

Anyone with thoughts on this or additional input?

Too bad they didn't have D5 or D6 ball back in the day.  I could've been an All-American!   

[Ralph Turner]

I'm going to throw some really uninformed questions out there for the general public.  Feel free to provide answers that make my stupidity blatantly apparent. 

1.  What about certain (or all) SCAC schools make them good candidates to go to D4?  Their non-commitment to building athletic powerhouses?  Their commitment to athletic success coming first? 

2. Now I understand that we're in the infancy of such an issue, but are even the Trinity's and the DePauw's of the world (referring to those schools who historically finish well in the all-sports rankings) being talked about in this? 

NCAC Commissioner interviewed on D-III/D-IV  -- David Collinge found this one, and here is the attendant discussion.

Wes, I think that the best document to read is this 185 page Power Point presentation from the Working Group meeting last summer.  Please work your way thru it, and look at the various ways that the Working Group has tried to identify the 150 members that it will take to make a new division cost-effective. (Nope, that doesn't get 150.  Nope that doesn't either, but the WIAC is in that one. That one does, but do we really want the WIAC? Etc., etc., etc.)

My continuing question has been, will they find the 150 members who want to disrupt their current arrangements?   

Of note, on page 137 of 185 we see the Southwestern cohort (SU, RC, CeC, CoC, UOS, DPU, HC) and the others (TU, AC, OU, Saps) with respect to voting.  BSC is not considered. 

[Major_Fan]

Top 25 poll just released... I have to say as a Millsaps fan that I don't agree with knocking us out of the poll completely.  We lost to two teams who were a combined 30-5 ...on the road.  Centre moves up to #11.

What's everyone elses take on the poll?

[hendrixfan]

What's everyone elses take on the poll?

I was afraid Millsaps would drop out, but at the same time hopeful the voters would take into account the competition and being on the road the past weekend.

I am surprised the Majors only received 15 votes.

[pbrooks3]

What's everyone elses take on the poll?

I've been filling out a top 25 poll the past several weeks - I had moved them down to #24 in my poll.  I respect what my Centre friends tell me about Millsaps along with Frank's insights, and everyone I've communicated with thinks they are a very solid team deserving of a top 25 ranking.  This polling stuff gets pretty interesting when you try to figure out who should get the 16-25 slots in the rankings; theres's a lot of argument on who should go in these slots.   

[pbrooks3]

Ralph, appreciate all of the info you've supplied on the future of D3 and how the NAIA figures in this - I'm a relative neophyte to NCAA III and I found the PowerPoint material informative.  I need to read more on the topic before I can offer any informed opinion through this board.

[frank_ezelle]

Based on the way that polls work, I think it is understandable that Millsaps fell from the top 25.  There is such a fine line between a high ranking and being unranked and two straight losses usually means a big hit in the votes.  Just as an example of how fine the line can be:

--If the Centre 3-pointer doesn't go in a the end of regulation, Centre probably falls to maybe 20.  One shot makes the difference in maybe 9 spots in the ranking.

--If Lorenzo Bailey doesn't hit the last second shot against Sewanee, then Millsaps is probably unranked last week instead of #18.  That one shot probably meant at least 10 spots in the rankings.  Also, Millsaps wasn't penalized for only winning by 1 on their home court, just as they were given bonus points for losing to two tough opponents on the road.

--And this is theory instead of reality, but if the timing of the schedule had been that this was the year that Centre and DePauw came to Jackson, then I could see Millsaps having won both games this weekend and certainly moving as high as 11th, maybe into the top-10, instead of currently being unranked.

The polls are interesting and I do like it when Millsaps gets ranked, but I've learned over the years that the polls are insignificant when compared to the NCAA Regional rankings.  A high ranking there is the thing that helps you at the end of the season.

Also, to all the DePauw folks:  I do see your points about the game and I think we all are in agreement that both teams are very good this year.  Plus, I want to add my thanks to the DePauw broadcast team, which was a team of one this weekend, for the outstanding coverage.  As always, it was very professional and I am impressed on how much home work you did on the visiting team.  I look forward to your coverage of the SCAC Tournament--I hope you guys do that once again this year.

[frank_ezelle]

In the East we currently have Centre(8-0), DePauw(6-2), Oglethorpe(6-2), Rhodes(2-6), Sewanee(0-8), and Birmingham Southern.

In the West we currently have Millsaps(7-2), Trinity(6-2), Southwestern(4-4), Hendrix(4-5), Austin(2-6), and Colorado (0-8).

I thought some people may find it interesting to look at the current standings and the remaining schedule to see who has the toughest and easiest road from here and how that my shake up the standings for the rest of the season.

Here's the remaining schedule for the regular season (someone may want to break it down into a single line for each team showing the SCAC home and away games--I only had time to do a cut-and-paste):

Feb. 1 
   8:00 PM  Birmingham Southern   Hendrix     
   8:00 PM  Oglethorpe   Austin     
   8:00 PM  Colorado Col.   Sewanee     
   9:00 PM  DePauw   Southwestern (Tex.)     
   9:00 PM  Rhodes   Millsaps     
   9:00 PM  Centre   Trinity (Tex.)     
Feb. 2 
   9:00 PM  DePauw   Trinity (Tex.)     
   9:00 PM  Centre   Southwestern (Tex.)     
Feb. 3 
   1:00 PM  Oglethorpe   Colorado Col.     
   2:00 PM  Sewanee   Austin     
   3:00 PM  Rhodes   Hendrix     
   4:00 PM  Birmingham Southern   Millsaps     
Feb. 6 
   7:00 PM  Piedmont   Oglethorpe     
   9:00 PM  Maryville (Tenn.)   Sewanee     
Feb. 8 
   8:00 PM  Austin   Hendrix     
   8:00 PM  Birmingham Southern   Centre     
   8:00 PM  Rhodes   DePauw     
   9:00 PM  Trinity (Tex.)   Southwestern (Tex.)     
   9:00 PM  Colorado Col.   Millsaps     
Feb. 9 
   6:00 PM  Dallas   Trinity (Tex.)     
   8:00 PM  Sewanee   Oglethorpe     
Feb. 10 
   3:00 PM  Birmingham Southern   DePauw     
   3:00 PM  Colorado Col.   Hendrix     
   3:00 PM  Rhodes   Centre     
   4:00 PM  Austin   Millsaps     
   6:00 PM  Dallas   Southwestern (Tex.)     
Feb. 15 
   8:00 PM  Hendrix   Trinity (Tex.)     
   8:00 PM  Oglethorpe   Birmingham Southern     
   8:00 PM  Sewanee   Rhodes     
   9:00 PM  Millsaps   Southwestern (Tex.)     
Feb. 16 
   3:00 PM  Centre   DePauw     
   3:00 PM  Colorado Col.   Austin     
   9:00 PM  Hendrix   Southwestern (Tex.)     
Feb. 17 
   3:00 PM  Millsaps   Trinity (Tex.)     
   3:00 PM  Sewanee   Birmingham Southern     
   3:00 PM  Oglethorpe   Rhodes     
Feb. 22 
   8:00 PM  Centre   Oglethorpe     
   8:00 PM  Trinity (Tex.)   Austin     
   9:00 PM  DePauw   Sewanee     
   10:00 PM  Southwestern (Tex.)   Colorado Col.     
Feb. 23 
   4:00 PM  Hendrix   Millsaps     
   5:00 PM  Rhodes   Birmingham Southern     
   8:00 PM  Trinity (Tex.)   Colorado Col.     
Feb. 24 
   3:00 PM  Southwestern (Tex.)   Austin     
   4:00 PM  Centre   Sewanee     
   8:00 PM  DePauw   Oglethorpe 

[Pat Coleman]

--If Lorenzo Bailey doesn't hit the last second shot against Sewanee, then Millsaps is probably unranked last week instead of #18.  That one shot probably meant at least 10 spots in the rankings.  Also, Millsaps wasn't penalized for only winning by 1 on their home court, just as they were given bonus points for losing to two tough opponents on the road.

...

The polls are interesting and I do like it when Millsaps gets ranked, but I've learned over the years that the polls are insignificant when compared to the NCAA Regional rankings.  A high ranking there is the thing that helps you at the end of the season.

Unfortunately, that ranking gives you no bonus points for losing.

[frank_ezelle]

There aren't many bonus points for losing in any poll.  Just for my education, the value of a win or loss in baseball is greatly effected by the record of your opponent and maybe now the record of their opponents (I get mixed up on all this).  In basketball, is it just win-loss percentage with no regard (or bonus points) for losing to a strong team?

I'm sure there's a link somewhere that explains this so maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

[Dave84]

I'm not entirely sure how the NCAA Regional Rankings are done.  Pat would you be able to fill me in.  Is it voted on by Regional Coaches or is it done based on a statistical analysis? 

I'm pretty sure it only looks at wins and losses vs. IN-region games and does not take into account out-of-region games.  this is a difficult way to rank teams because if we recall a few years back University of Dallas and other non-conference affiliated schools would try and play a lot of south region games to get their region wins up high enough to get an at-large bid.  not saying that they didn't deserve making the tourney, but this penalizes other schools (DePauw and other schools further from the south region, even trinity at times) who go outside of the region to play a variety of schools in different areas of the country.

with all of this said, I can't knock the system because without publicity for DIII and no AP polls (although we all probably think that they should consult D3hoops.com, right Pat?) it's difficult to give an in depth system to evaluating teams that should make the national tournament.