Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Out of curiosity, who do you think were "left on the table" when LaCrosse got in last? Here's mine:

NE: Trinity
E: NYU
A: New Jersey
MA: Hopkins
S: HPU
GL: Albion?
M: WashU

Any thoughts?

[smedindy]

Yeah, I think Albion was the hanging chad in the GL region, which is still a shame.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They didn't give a whole lot of respect to third teams in conferences.  Although Albions QOWI number was really low.

[iwumichigander]

...
Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

Q, your dedication and thoughtfulness with respect to the health and well-being of IWU basketball is commendable.  You always have the "Greenies" best interests at heart.

Greenies...greens...


Say, I wonder if you could get 18 holes in while you were out there.

Ralph, I think Q was just respecting our strong California and Phoenix area alumni who do not get to see too many IWU games but are good supporters of IWU.

[albionbritfan]

Albion's QOWI was low, which forced the committee's hand I believe.  Had Albion eeked out another win against Calvin/Hope or played ONU as it should have played out in an early season tournament, things may have turned out differently.  At the end of the day, Albion perenially is forced to win against Calvin and Hope or faces trips to Ohio to get some in-region wins (or coerce them to travel to Albion).

I'm disappointed because I know Albion is better than more than a handful in the tourney, but I'm not disgruntled because I know Albion didn't do everything it could to get in.

And I will take Hope and Woo to face off in their regional final.  Speaking of which, is Pat and d3hoops doing a pick 'em again?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Speaking of which, is Pat and d3hoops doing a pick 'em again?

As far as I know, yes.

[diehardfan]

We could have Diehardfan do the "Vanna White" thing...
"And now April, is there an Amherst?"

Nice use of alitteration, Ralph. The MWC board would be proud.

I think the C bids look great. Though honestly, we all like to have what we perceive the best teams to be, spread out. But the way the NCAA does things, it sorta practical. The expanded tourney is soo cool! Look at all the midwest teams in it. 

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,

Heck, with Q, I guarantee he could get in AT LEAST 96 holes - probably more!

I admire the man's altruism!

...
Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

Q, your dedication and thoughtfulness with respect to the health and well-being of IWU basketball is commendable.  You always have the "Greenies" best interests at heart.

Greenies...greens...


Say, I wonder if you could get 18 holes in while you were out there.

Ralph, I think Q was just respecting our strong California and Phoenix area alumni who do not get to see too many IWU games but are good supporters of IWU.

Now I have an excuse to attribute it to altruism!

No malice intended, Q.  Anything for a good round of golf in early March!

[albionbritfan]

I was noodling this whole issue of comparing QOWI across regions.  What if the NCAA put a multiplier on a region's teams based upon the region's record against out-of-region DIII opponents.  For instance:
1) Accumulate the records for all teams in a given region against out-of-region DIII opponents (200 mile rule excluded for these purposes).
2) The regions are ranked by winning percentage for out-of-region games.
3) A multiplier is awarded to each of the 8 regions by rank.  The multiplier range would be something like 1.15 down to .85 in increments to accomodate the 8 regions.
4) The multiplier is applied to all team's QOWI (currently as calculated) in a given region.

I would love to test this hypothetically if I could get the data for it.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That might be a decent measure, but it would still be based somewhat on out-of-region games, which they don't want to do.

I think it just comes down to teams being to tougher conferences and regions having to work harder to make the tournament.

It might not get the best 59 there, but no tournament is perfect.  I mean look at the Big East this year.  They'll get 7 or 8 teams in, but have 3 or 4 more who are better than some of the at-large bids.  It's just the price you pay for better competition.

[smedindy]

I don't think so. I think there are six MVC teams worthy of inclusion, all better than Lousivllle, who I have 9th in the Big East power right now.

[smedindy]

If there were a D-3 NIT, and it was 40 teams, based on my power rating amalgamation, here's the 40 teams that would be in:

Ohio Northern (17)
Albion (27)
Wilmington (30)
Bates (33)
Whitworth (34)
Franklin (35)
Wartburg (36)
Trinity (CT) (37)
Washington U. (40)
Coe (42)
+++++++++++++
Elmhurst (45)
Wisc - Oshkosh (46)
Centre (49)
Willamette (50)
NYU (52)
Keene State (46)
Ohio Wesleyan (58)
Wisc - Stevens Point (59)
Lakeland (61)
Muskingum (62)
++++++++++++++
Rochester (63)
Southwestern (65)
Williams (67)
MIT (68)
Chapman (69)
Howard Payne (70)
Huntingdon (71)
Gustavus Adolphus (72)
Loras (74)
Richard Stockton (75)
+++++++++++++++
Chicago (76)
Hanover (77)
Coll. of NJ (78)
Rhode Island College (79)
Oswego State (80)
Ramapo (82)
Albright (83)
NJ City (84)
Mary Hardin-Baylor (85)
Brandeis (86)

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't think so. I think there are six MVC teams worthy of inclusion, all better than Lousivllle, who I have 9th in the Big East power right now.

Well, yes the MVC is going to get screwed, but there will be at-large team (I'm looking at you Big-12) that will get unworthy teams in.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'd like to see that d3 NIT.




And no comments about the ECAC serving the same purpose... that's a total joke.

[smedindy]

Notice how high up Chapman and Huntingdon are, compared to <cough>Villa Julei</cough> at 150! Argh!