MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[sac]

OK... I said Wisconsin and that region... I did not say WIAC. Don't confuse the two.

The WIAC is a very strong conference and I say it year in and year out it is one of the top five in Division III basketball. However, I did not say that Massey weighs too heavily the WIAC... I said it is centralized towards Wisconsin and that region... and Pat has pointed out why it then skews other data and other teams - check out the MIAC board for Pat's thoughts on that.

Again... I said at the beginning that I have talked about this on numerous boards and because I have... please search Pat's and other comments out... I can't just keep rehashing things as much as I would like to boost my posts . I have a show tonight and have lost the main broadcasting computer - I am a little stressed LOL.

I'm not following this supposed 'in love with Wisconsin thing'.  There is only one other Wisconsin school not in the WIAC rated in Massey's top 50.  St. Norbert has been one of the two top teams in their conference. 

So if there's a bias where are the other Wisconsin centered teams?

If its biased, its biased towards good basketball teams.  For the most part year after year the best basketball in D3 has been played in the Midwest, and year after year massey's ratings reflect that.

[KnightSlappy]

How can data be centralized around a region? The data flows to where it flows. See my rebuttal. I think it's a perception, not reality.

And pardon me for not seeing your other posts because I would have rebutted the heck out of them then. Just because you didn't get a response doesn't mean your arguments are golden and can't be challenged NOW. I have posted back and forth with Pat on this in the past as well and I think I see the data differently.

Just because I don't get a response??? Seriously?! I never think my arguments are golden... and it is my opinion just as it is yours! But as Pat has shown in the past, when schools in the MIAC are boosted by Massey for no reason other than they are close to other schools like those in the WIAC it is flawed... and I don't trust it.

Seriously, if you can't come up with a system that actually shows the strengths of teams across the country that isn't saturated and infected with data that means nothing to a vast majority of the other schools being ranked... it is flawed. Transylvania has a game against Kentucky now yearly... you don't think their SOS number is clearly boosted by such a game? But does that say Transylvania's schedule is stronger than Wooster's just because Kentucky is in that data flow? No! Is Randolph-Macon's schedule boosted in Massey by their game against Richmond versus Hampden-Sydney's who doesn't have a D1 team to play? Of course!

Design a system like Massey that only uses games in Division III... because we can't get a sense of a school's SOS when we are comparing games and teams that have nothing to do with Division III. And if that data is used it unfairly boosts the SOS for many schools whose SOS isn't really that high to begin with.

Kentucky and Transylvania did not count in the Massey ratings either of the last two years because it was an exhibition game for both schools.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Actually... it wasn't an exhibition for at least Kentucky... they played it in their regular season.

[sac]

Actually... it wasn't an exhibition for at least Kentucky... they played it in their regular season.

http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/kty-m-baskbl-sched.html
http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/archive/kty-m-baskbl-sched-2011.html

the little # sign which says 'exhibition event' from both seasons is pretty clear

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yep... noticed that as well. I am sorry then for the mistake. At one point those games were being counted or at least in the stats they were counting for Kentucky as this was a conversation that was made on some of the boards earlier this year. Either something changed or whatever... but clearly they are exhibition games now. Sorry for screwing that up for everyone.

[Pat Coleman]

I can't imagine why the WIAC would rate so high every year.  Probably because they play good basketball?

National Champions
2012  UW-Whitewater
2010  UW-Stevens Point
2005  UW-Stevens Point
2004  UW-Stevens Point
1999  UW-Platteville
1998  UW-Platteville
1995  UW-Platteville

7 out of the last 17 seems like a good ratio to me.

I don't mind the WIAC being rated highly, but it seems other teams get a big boost for touching the WIAC and I'm not sure that always makes a lot of sense. Maybe that part of the algorithm works for D1, but I'm not sure it does for D3. I made a point about the 2011 MIAC on the Pool C (I believe) board last week about this.

Pat,

If there was a bias in Massey it wouldn't show in the other systems. Those other systems also have the WIAC up and over other conferences. Where I can see it is that there is limited non-conference games in the MIAC and the proximity to the WIAC may help IF (and a big IF) they keep the games close against the WIAC (because MOV is a factor). Otherwise, I don't think touching the WIAC matters a ton otherwise Albertus Magnus would be a lot higher on the charts because they 'touched' a D-1 team.

I don't spend a lot of times delving into the other systems, but if that's the case, it doesn't make Massey more accurate for Division III, just in line with others.

Listen, I like Massey for what it is, good for broad comparisons across Division III. But I don't think it's perfect at any time of the year, and that's why I don't buy into it the way the rest of you do. I am sure that when these guys tweak their formula, they do it based on how it affects the Division I rankings, and whether that provides greater accuracy further down the line, they don't have any real way of knowing. I think those of you who follow our preseason football rankings know that we/I do think it is very possible for one particular conference to have a lot of highly ranked teams, right? I'm not opposed to the concept, but I don't like seeing it rub off on a neighboring conference that just has some head-to-head overlap.

I'm more of a fan than Dave, though, clearly!

[ohiofan1954]

I notice that there isn't any discussion about the officials in last nights scot-bishop game. Was the crew the same as the first or possibly being a wednesday night game not as many people noticed?

[smedindy]

I never said Massey was perfect. But it's a good neutral observer of the universe of all of college basketball WITH NO WISCONSIN BIAS that's outright. It's a data point I use and I get passionate about good, neutral data instead of eyes-only based ratings. I guess that started when I first started to read Bill James in the 80's.

To just flippantly discount it, especially as a probability model? I got problems with that because whatever the biases are, when dealing with that aspect of it, it's pretty solid.

And one or two games for a handful of schools is not 'infecting' the data, Dave. Heck, one game for one school doesn't really 'infect' that team with this many games in their model. It's noise, not a signal. (See Nate Silver again...)

Sorry to get things off track.

Anyway, this all started as a discussion on the GL ratings, and how Calvin was going to run the table. Which has implications for the NCAC.

Right now, I see the league getting two bids IF OWU can make the semi-finals (if things go according to plan in most every conference) or the finals. However, if Calvin or Thomas More loses in their conference tourney and some other carnage happens, OWU may be in trouble.

[goscots]

I notice that there isn't any discussion about the officials in last nights scot-bishop game. Was the crew the same as the first or possibly being a wednesday night game not as many people noticed?

I didn't see the first game but I was in attendance last night. I thought the referees were pretty good - namely because they didn't call the ticky-tacky fouls (it took well into the overtime before either team got to the penalty). There was clearly contact on most shots around the basket throughout the game. The one call that got discussion going around me was when the Wooster player tried to call timeout as he was falling out of bounds. I know the rule has changed but I believe the only requirement is that you have both feet on the floor - which he had. Anybody know the specifics to this?

[woosterbooster]

I notice that there isn't any discussion about the officials in last nights scot-bishop game. Was the crew the same as the first or possibly being a wednesday night game not as many people noticed?

I didn't see the first game but I was in attendance last night. I thought the referees were pretty good - namely because they didn't call the ticky-tacky fouls (it took well into the overtime before either team got to the penalty). There was clearly contact on most shots around the basket throughout the game. The one call that got discussion going around me was when the Wooster player tried to call timeout as he was falling out of bounds. I know the rule has changed but I believe the only requirement is that you have both feet on the floor - which he had. Anybody know the specifics to this?

I don't know what the rule is now, exactly, but Mike Breckenridge, the Wooster radio guy, was pretty sure that Thorpe should have gotten the timeout.  He said that it appeared that neither of the officials in the vicinity were able to see the play clearly.

By the way, I love the international rule on this, which I was unfamiliar with until listening to the Scots' game in Canada.  In international rules, only the coach can call timeout, and even then, only when there is already a stoppage of play.  Ball out of bounds, held ball, foul, etc.  So simple, so easy.  And, I'll bet, in accordance with the original concept of timeouts.  I doubt that the original idea was ever for a player to be able to get out of a jam by calling time.  You should have to play your way out of those situations.

[cave2bens]

By the way, I love the international rule on this, which I was unfamiliar with until listening to the Scots' game in Canada.  In international rules, only the coach can call timeout, and even then, only when there is already a stoppage of play.  Ball out of bounds, held ball, foul, etc.  So simple, so easy.  And, I'll bet, in accordance with the original concept of timeouts.  I doubt that the original idea was ever for a player to be able to get out of a jam by calling time.  You should have to play your way out of those situations.

Resounding agreement - +k. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

By the way, I love the international rule on this, which I was unfamiliar with until listening to the Scots' game in Canada.  In international rules, only the coach can call timeout, and even then, only when there is already a stoppage of play.  Ball out of bounds, held ball, foul, etc.  So simple, so easy.  And, I'll bet, in accordance with the original concept of timeouts.  I doubt that the original idea was ever for a player to be able to get out of a jam by calling time.  You should have to play your way out of those situations.

Resounding agreement - +k.

Yeah but then Chris Webber couldn't have become an eternal butt of jokes for his calling a timeout they didn't have!

[Gregory Sager]

How can data be centralized around a region? The data flows to where it flows. See my rebuttal. I think it's a perception, not reality.

And pardon me for not seeing your other posts because I would have rebutted the heck out of them then. Just because you didn't get a response doesn't mean your arguments are golden and can't be challenged NOW. I have posted back and forth with Pat on this in the past as well and I think I see the data differently.

Just because I don't get a response??? Seriously?! I never think my arguments are golden... and it is my opinion just as it is yours! But as Pat has shown in the past, when schools in the MIAC are boosted by Massey for no reason other than they are close to other schools like those in the WIAC it is flawed... and I don't trust it.

That's not the only reason, Dave. It also has to do with the fact that the MIAC is a huge league whose double round-robin leaves very little room for non-conference games.

[smedindy]

That's right - the limited n/c opportunities can affect the data early on, but by now it should all be washed through. Good teams will show themselves, bad teams will be exposed, no matter who they have 'touched'.

Same with football, by week 8 or so it normalizes itself.

And yes, it's possible that a 'mediocre' team could be rated highly, but most likely the 'mediocrity' is a perception. Still, using an algorithm based rating system that uses elements of offense / defense, home / road, SOS and MOV is the best way to determine how good team A from the NE is compared to team B in the west.

Take time to understand the data and the reasons behind what the data shows, just don't pooh-pooh it out of hand like out-of-work political pundits.

[smedindy]

And now, back to the action:

Allegheny (3-10, 9-13) @ Denison (6-7, 8-14) - Big game for both squads. For Denison, a win keeps them in the hunt for a 4/5 game (and at worst, a 6 seed). A loss puts them in the range of a 7/8 seed, which, well, won't be good, since both Wooster and OWU have performed clock-cleaning services on the Big Red. The Gators are win-or-else right now. Allegheny has improved quite a bit this year - but so has the league.

Hiram (5-8, 11-11) @ Ohio Wesleyan (9-4, 16-5) - If OWU keeps winning, they're the second seed. They really don't have cushion over Witt so they need to keep playing hard (not that they wouldn't, but...). Hiram has no cushion. They just broke a four-game losing streak, but the Terriers really have to keep winning to make the tourney much less avoid the 8 seed and a trip to Wooster. I can't see Hiram breaking through. They've had the pieces to have an 8-5 record instead of 5-8 - just didn't play like it for most of January.

Oberlin (3-10, 5-17) @ DePauw (7-6, 14-8) - On paper, no-brainer. This should be a lock for the New Tigers. The Yeomen seem to have worn out as well. The team that took Wittenberg to the edge seemingly has vaporzied with two big losses of late. Yet there's something about this DPU that keeps me from running to put bucks on their money line. Not that I would anyway, being a Wabash man...

Kenyon (7-6, 13-9) @ Wabash (5-8, 7-15) - "Stakes is high" as De La Soul would opine. Are they ever. The Lords have a pretty favorable slate to finish the year, which means 10-6 isn't out of the question. With that record, they could be a 4 seed (or even sneak a 3 if something happens to Witt but Witt holds the tiebreaker). Yet a trip to Chadwick isn't easy, and the Wabash defense will be ready for the Lords. Yet in Kenyon's earlier win, the guards were the key to victory. Can Wabash shut them down and hold down Kenyon's front court? A 6 seed could be in the balance for the LGs. Anything to avoid Wooster or OWU on the first night of conference play.

Wittenberg (8-5, 15-7) @ Wooster (12-1, 19-3) - It seemed like an eternity ago that these two teams met. In the context of this season, it was. While not the turning point (Witt's stumbles were post-holiday), the earlier matchup definitely was blatant foreshadowing on how the season went. The Old Tigers have somewhat rebounded, taking care of Wabash with some classic "Witt at home" defense. The Scots, again, staved off what looked like defeat and outlasted OWU in OT Wednesday. They find a way to win most days. I think they'll find a way Saturday, for sure, mucking up the middle muddle again and making for a very...interesting...last week of the season.