Pool C

[Greek Tragedy]

Lay off Dave. . . this is his busy time.  You don't expect great customer service at Toys R Us on Christmas Eve and you should not expect it from Dave on conference championship/selection show weekend.

Actually I do, that's their job. To be fair, it's not Dave's job to be nice all the time.

[Pat Coleman]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

I actually think I'm pretty level-headed on this. Have I said anything here that is think skinned? I didn't think so. I understand our limitations and accept that we can't do playoff projections ahead of selection Sunday the way we used to.

But you are taking out on me something Dave did to you, and I'm not sure that's the best use of your time.

[oldknight]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

[NEPAFAN]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

Did you see the post in question?

[David Collinge]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

But you are taking out on me something Dave did to you, and I'm not sure that's the best use of your time.

I think describing Dave as a member of Pat's "staff" fundamentally mischaracterizes this operation, FWIW. Dave is his own man. He can be a little gruff at times, something I think most of us are used to, especially in his posts, but he contributes a great deal to the D3 hoops community. I think maybe it's time to move on from this.

[bopol]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 

[Pat Coleman]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 

Now I get it. You took my explanation as whining, and so you chose to strike back for something I didn't even say ... kinda confusing. No wonder I didn't follow.

I think you mis-read my post.

[bopol]

I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days. 

]

Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 

Now I get it. You took my explanation as whining, and so you chose to strike back for something I didn't even say ... kinda confusing. No wonder I didn't follow.

I think you mis-read my post.

You're right, you really didn't whine, you just didn't understand I was picking on you a bit after Dave got obnoxious with me after I posted a bracket for discussion when there wasn't another one out there to discuss.  Like I said, all good fun. 

[bopol]

So back to basketball.

I have to say after the frustration of last year, I have to give the committee credit for doing a good job.

The Pool C picks are completely reasonable.  I didn't quite have it that way, but I certainly thought about it going Springfield and WPI with my last two picks instead of Franklin and Marshall and North Central, but the differences were minimal.  I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

The hosts are good picks.  I like Mount Union over Wooster and OWU as they did win their tournament, but I had it the other way.  The last couple Pool C coming from the Northeast makes the shift in hosts that way make sense.  The only other host I missed was Virginia Wesleyan (who I think deserved it) vs. Trinity (who I get why they got it).  The field seems fairly well balanced as much as geographically possible.  Kudos for a good job to the committee.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

I think it's much more that winning percentage matters when you get down to the end.  Catholic and WPI had wins, lots of wins.  It trumped SOS.  Carthage and NCC were both .667.  The committee seemed to send the message loud and clear: 2/3rds doesn't cut it, no matter how good your schedule.  You have to win more.  Dave's .667 red line might have become .668.

[Greek Tragedy]

Bopol,

Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.

[sac]

Bopol,

Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.

Mount actually won 3 RvRRO games in the last 6.  Marietta, John Carroll and Marietta.  With one loss to John Carroll.   In other words they picked up 4 RvRRO's in about 15 days.  Mount Union for sure moved into one of the top 2 Great Lakes spots.  OWU lost its semi-final on its home floor to an unranked DePauw.

[bopol]

I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

I think it's much more that winning percentage matters when you get down to the end.  Catholic and WPI had wins, lots of wins.  It trumped SOS.  Carthage and NCC were both .667.  The committee seemed to send the message loud and clear: 2/3rds doesn't cut it, no matter how good your schedule.  You have to win more.  Dave's .667 red line might have become .668.

Maybe.  That also seems reasonable.  In general though, I see no distinctions over really good wins against #1 and #3 in the Central region and pretty good wins against #2 and #7 or #8 in the Northeast and think we can safely stick to records against RRO as opposed to nitpicking 'results vs. RRO'.  I picked North Central in my last pick because they had the wins against Augustana and UWSP over Springfield which had a slightly better winning percentage and slightly worse SOS because they didn't have the wins of that quality, getting dropped 3x by Babson.  I was wrong though. 

[bopol]

Bopol,

Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.

I see where you're coming from and I had OWU hosting over Mount, but I watch the two Mount OAC playoff games (JC & Marietta) and Mount looked really good.  They were 13-2 in their final 15 games with a 4-2 vs. RRO.  I don't know to what extent the committee said that Mount is hot and has been hot since mid-season vs. OWU has a better overall resume. 

Like I said, after last year's bracket of bubble cartoons over my head with "" or "#!*&", the committee did a much, much better job this year.

[Greek Tragedy]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.