MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[imderekpoe]

Lastly, IMO Witt not getting a spot in the tourney is a shame but if the CCIW only gets one team in the tourney after having 3 or 4 teams in the top 25 all year that is a pure disgrace and there is no way I would consider the winner of the tourney "National Champions". Ofcourse this is only MY opinion.

Every year there are teams that 'deserve' to make the tourney, but not everyone can get in.  There are only so many spots available.  IMO, to belittle the tourney as a whole because you disagree with the last couple of at large bids seems a little extreme.

[Li'l Giant]

Lastly, IMO Witt not getting a spot in the tourney is a shame but if the CCIW only gets one team in the tourney after having 3 or 4 teams in the top 25 all year that is a pure disgrace and there is no way I would consider the winner of the tourney "National Champions". Ofcourse this is only MY opinion.

Every year there are teams that 'deserve' to make the tourney, but not everyone can get in.  There are only so many spots available.  IMO, to belittle the tourney as a whole because you disagree with the last couple of at large bids seems a little extreme.

The reality is that those one or two last at-large teams are rarely ever legitimate title contenders, anyway. I don't think that their exclusion invalidates the final result.

[smedindy]

Yick. Upset city today!

[ScotsFan]

Lastly, IMO Witt not getting a spot in the tourney is a shame but if the CCIW only gets one team in the tourney after having 3 or 4 teams in the top 25 all year that is a pure disgrace and there is no way I would consider the winner of the tourney "National Champions". Ofcourse this is only MY opinion.

Every year there are teams that 'deserve' to make the tourney, but not everyone can get in.  There are only so many spots available.  IMO, to belittle the tourney as a whole because you disagree with the last couple of at large bids seems a little extreme.

The reality is that those one or two last at-large teams are rarely ever legitimate title contenders, anyway. I don't think that their exclusion invalidates the final result.

Li'l Giant and cmhscots,

Great points.  To make a comment such as the one roadtrip made is a bit short sighted to say the least.  To say that you won't recognize whomever wins the National Championship because the 3rd or 4th best CCIW teams didn't get in just doesn't make sense.  Like those Pool C bubble teams are seriously in cosideration for making a run to Salem? 

Yes, everyone loves the Cinderella team, but the reality is, there are only so many spots in the current system and with the large amount of upsets going on, teams that had thought they were safe for Pool C contention are now on the bubble and teams that had been on the bubble are seeing them burst.

Besides, if you have followed the tournament closely at all, you would realize that any team that makes it to Salem coming out of certain regions are definately deserving of being there.  Look at the road Witt had to travel to get there last season.  I think every opponent they faced outside of LEC was ranked! 

The bottom line is the road to Salem is not easy even without the 3rd or 4th best CCIW or WIAC or OAC schools involved in the tournament, unless you are lucky enough to be in the Northeast.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I wouldn't be too sure that teams barely left out of pool C are not title contenders (though with 18 teams rather than 5 just a couple years ago, it is less likely now).  Just last year Illinois Wesleyan may well have been the last pool C (they had the lowest regional win % of any C) and made the Final Four.  Same thing in 2001, when they finished 3rd in the CCIW and barely squeezed in, yet finished 3rd in the country.

This year, Elmhurst and Witt (among others) have basically a zero chance of getting in, but I wouldn't bet too strongly against either getting hot and going to Salem if they had the opportunity.

[roadtrip]

I may have been a little extreme in my previous post but........if you play in a weak conference and you do well you're penalized (Witt)....if you play in a competitive conference and do well you're penalized (Elm).....I know if my team was ranked in the Top 25 all season and we couldn't get one of 59 spots I would be singing the blues big time.....What would happen in DI with this formula??

[ScotsFan]

I wouldn't be too sure that teams barely left out of pool C are not title contenders (though with 18 teams rather than 5 just a couple years ago, it is less likely now).  Just last year Illinois Wesleyan may well have been the last pool C (they had the lowest regional win % of any C) and made the Final Four.  Same thing in 2001, when they finished 3rd in the CCIW and barely squeezed in, yet finished 3rd in the country.

This year, Elmhurst and Witt (among others) have basically a zero chance of getting in, but I wouldn't bet too strongly against either getting hot and going to Salem if they had the opportunity.

I wouldn't put this year's Emhurst or Wittenberg squads in the same class as last year's IWU squad.  From what I remember, IWU hit a bit of a funk during the regular season.  It was almost as if they became bored during the regular season and turned the switch back on for the post season.  Remember, they were also the consensus #1 team in DIII for much of the season as well, which can't be said for Witt and Elmhurst.  And the 2001 IWU team, as you mentioned, were in the era of only 5 Pool C bids.  In that era, there was more likely of a chance for a somewhat legitimate contender to be left out.  With the system as it is now, I just am not of the opinion that the tournament is lacking by leaving out the 19th and 20th best Pool C contenders.

I may have been a little extreme in my previous post but........if you play in a weak conference and you do well you're penalized (Witt)....if you play in a competitive conference and do well you're penalized (Elm).....I know if my team was ranked in the Top 25 all season and we couldn't get one of 59 spots I would be singing the blues big time.....What would happen in DI with this formula??

Well, you can  blame the conference tournament upsets for some of the teams that have been in or around the  Top 25 all season long that are being left out.  We could do away with the conference post season tournaments and just give the automatic bids to the regular season conference champs and then dole out the Pool C bids down the line after that.  But, giving teams like Calvin and Williams and Coast Guard etc. a chance to elongate their seasons by winning their conference tournaments is a part of what makes this time of season so special.   

[pennstghs]

even if wittenberg would have reached the tournament final without losing to allegheny and ohio wesleyan, the last C spots would have been tough to come by with Hope, Virginia Wesleyan, and Amherst pretty much assured a spot and with other tough teams out there as well.

Wooster Booster, can we just kiss and make up?

jscwittfan-good lookin out bro

[realist]

Well said Scotts fan:  We all  knew what the rules were before the season started.  I support Calvin.   They struggled all season, but were good enough to win our conference tournament (which determines our AQ).  Do they deserve to be in the tournament.  Yes, because they came in according to the pre-set rules.  To try to redefine the selection criteria after the games have started doesn't work.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Of course the tourney was never designed to have the 59 'best' teams (nor is the d1 tourney designed to have the 'best' 65).  I have no bone to pick with Pool A - they won their conference, they deserve a shot.  Many of them are little more than a first-round speed bump to vastly stronger teams (see d1 1v16 and 2v15), but the occasional David beats Goliath (no 16 has ever won, but a few have given a major scare; I think 2 15s have ever won) is a key part of what makes it 'March Madness'.  We DO suffer a bit in getting top teams in since we have 37 AQs for a 59-team tourney (d1 only has 20-something for a 65 team tourney), leaving a lot less wiggle-room for discretion.

But it is the lack of discretion used in selecting Bs and Cs that grates on me.  Using regional criteria to select a national tournament is nuts!  True, once at the table, teams are compared nationally, but using criteria where the damage has already been done.  Comparing (regional) QOWI, regional winning percentage, even record against regionally ranked teams, makes any logical sense only if you use the untenable assumption that all regions are equal.  A team in a strong region with a 9.5 QOWI and .7 winning % is in all probability a better team than a team in a weak region with a 10.5 QOWI and a .8 winning %.  But the 10.5, .8 team is a 'lock', the 9.5, ,7 will be going home.

Pool C consists of the next 18 teams best at meeting the regional criteria.  It should not be confused with being the next best 18 teams.

While Elmhurst and Witt (just as examples) are NOT last year's IWU team (not many are!), I would not bet serious money against them making it to Salem if they were given a chance.

[goscots]

Of course the tourney was never designed to have the 59 'best' teams (nor is the d1 tourney designed to have the 'best' 65).  I have no bone to pick with Pool A - they won their conference, they deserve a shot.  Many of them are little more than a first-round speed bump to vastly stronger teams (see d1 1v16 and 2v15), but the occasional David beats Goliath (no 16 has ever won, but a few have given a major scare; I think 2 15s have ever won) is a key part of what makes it 'March Madness'.  We DO suffer a bit in getting top teams in since we have 37 AQs for a 59-team tourney (d1 only has 20-something for a 65 team tourney), leaving a lot less wiggle-room for discretion.

But it is the lack of discretion used in selecting Bs and Cs that grates on me.  Using regional criteria to select a national tournament is nuts!  True, once at the table, teams are compared nationally, but using criteria where the damage has already been done.  Comparing (regional) QOWI, regional winning percentage, even record against regionally ranked teams, makes any logical sense only if you use the untenable assumption that all regions are equal.  A team in a strong region with a 9.5 QOWI and .7 winning % is in all probability a better team than a team in a weak region with a 10.5 QOWI and a .8 winning %.  But the 10.5, .8 team is a 'lock', the 9.5, ,7 will be going home.
Pool C consists of the next 18 teams best at meeting the regional criteria.  It should not be confused with being the next best 18 teams.

While Elmhurst and Witt (just as examples) are NOT last year's IWU team (not many are!), I would not bet serious money against them making it to Salem if they were given a chance.

Well stated Mr. Ypsi. If I could award +K I would.   Have anyone actually ever calculated the avaerga QOWI per region. I would guess that it would show that by design there is very little difference in the averages, thus ignoring actual differences in strength of teams.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Since QOWI is based only on in-region games, the averages, of mathematical necessity, will be essentially the same (they'd all be exactly the same were it not for the 200-mile rule, multi-region conferences like the UAA, and this year's addition of 'administrative regions' as another way for a game to be in-region - leave out these exceptions, a fairly modest proportion of all games, and every region would have to average 7.5 in QOWI).  Likewise, without those exceptions, all regions would, of necessity, have a winning % of .5.

Region-based criteria tell you nothing about relative strength of regions (except for the relatively few exceptions noted).

This year the CCIW went 66-22 against non-conference foes (obviously, some of the wins were against 'cupcakes', but many were not, including 4-0 against Hope and Calvin and several wins against WIAC teams, and the record includes OUR bottom-dwellers too!); the CCIW will have ONE team in the tourney.

If such games could be arranged, I would not only take Elmhurst, but also our 3rd, 4th, and 5th teams against some of the Cs that will get in.

In fairness, regionality is the preferred philosophy of d3, and, since our teams rarely make national TV (perhaps the increasing use of internet streaming video will ease that problem), selectors just don't have much except hard, cold stats to go by - but at least I wish they would improve the stats!

[David Collinge]

We all knew that this year's Mose Hole Classic had 4 top level teams in it, but who'd have guessed this result?

Champion: Ohio Northern--no bid to NCAA tournament
Runner-up: UW-La Crosse--no bid to NCAA tournament
3rd Place:  Wooster--Pool A
4th Place:  Calvin--Pool A

There's a good number of teams in the draw that I think would have real trouble with La Crosse.  But them's the breaks.

Wittenberg's season officially ends. 

[smedindy]

No Witt, and no WIAC at-large?

Traveshamockery!

[diehardfan]

We all knew that this year's Mose Hole Classic had 4 top level teams in it, but who'd have guessed this result?

Champion: Ohio Northern--no bid to NCAA tournament
Runner-up: UW-La Crosse--no bid to NCAA tournament
3rd Place:  Wooster--Pool A
4th Place:  Calvin--Pool A

There's a good number of teams in the draw that I think would have real trouble with La Crosse.  But them's the breaks.

Wittenberg's season officially ends. 

Good post... it's crazy how these things work out sometimes.