MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

BDB · February 13, 2006, 08:02:06 AM

Quote from: chmarx on February 12, 2006, 05:29:07 PM
I can certainly see attending an historic game like that instead of a big WIAC regular season game.

Do I sense a bit of sarcasm, chmarx?

Greek Tragedy · February 13, 2006, 08:10:09 AM

WIAC tie-breakers...because we'll probably need them!

1. Head-to-head competition between tied teams.

2. Cumulative Won/Loss record vs. teams placed higher in the conference standings.

3. Record vs. teams in conference standings in descending order (i.e., #1 seed, #2 seed).

4. Team with the best road record in conference games.

5. Coin toss conducted by the WIAC commissioner.

[Note: If two teams remain tied after a third or other teams are eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to criteria No. 1. For example, if four teams are tied with 4-2, 3-3, 3-3, 2-4 head-to-head records, the 4-2 team receives highest seed and the 2-4 team the lowest seed in the grouping. Since two teams remain tied at 3-3, we revert back to criteria #1 (head-to-head) between those two teams and then (if necessary) utilize the remaining criteria in order.]

Greek Tragedy · February 13, 2006, 08:12:32 AM

Quote from: chmarx on February 12, 2006, 05:29:07 PM
I can certainly see attending an historic game like that instead of a big WIAC regular season game.

Quote from: BlueDevil Bob on February 13, 2006, 08:02:06 AM
Do I sense a bit of sarcasm, chmarx?

If it was the WIAC conference tourney championship, I'd probably still go to Lambeau. There aren't many opportunities to see outdoor hockey, let alone, at Lambeau. Sorry guys.

uww4ever · February 13, 2006, 11:50:51 AM

Didn't know that a D-3 posting site could end up as "bulletin board material", especially from a jag like me.

I have no doubt that Nonemacher is the most improved, I am impressed with his shot blocking ability and his physical presence in a game, an "intimidator" to say the least. I would like to see Whitewater win out and host the championship game against Stout, but I'm getting ahead of myself. I didn't call him out personally, you could call out the entire team who gives up an 18 point lead at home to UWSP.

But I'm thanking Stevens Point nonetheless. Next time I won't down jagermeister and then post to this public website.

GO U DUB DUB

frodotwo · February 13, 2006, 06:34:48 PM

Am I right here, with 2 wins the Pointers win the WIAC tourney top seed? If WW loses to Oshkosh and beats EC; Stout loses at LX. Pointers, Hawks and Devils finish 12-4 in a 3 way tie, canceling each other out. Eagles win out to finish 11-5 with Osh stumbling against Platteville. Stout loses both games to LX while WW/SP wins both against Eagles, eliminating Stout. Go to the next tiebreaker SP splits with Osh while WW loses both, SP wins the top seed for the tourney?? Lots of "ifs" there, but home for the tourney would be a nice thing for Point! Obviously the top seed is WW's to win, beat Oshkosh and they're in via tiebreaker even with a loss against EC (Doubtful).

Greek Tragedy · February 13, 2006, 07:46:16 PM

Quote from: frodotwo on February 13, 2006, 06:34:48 PM
Am I right here, with 2 wins the Pointers win the WIAC tourney top seed? If WW loses to Oshkosh and beats EC; Stout loses at LX. Pointers, Hawks and Devils finish 12-4 in a 3 way tie, canceling each other out. Eagles win out to finish 11-5 with Osh stumbling against Platteville. Stout loses both games to LX while WW/SP wins both against Eagles, eliminating Stout.

[Note: If two teams remain tied after a third or other teams are eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to criteria No. 1. For example, if four teams are tied with 4-2, 3-3, 3-3, 2-4 head-to-head records, the 4-2 team receives highest seed and the 2-4 team the lowest seed in the grouping. Since two teams remain tied at 3-3, we revert back to criteria #1 (head-to-head) between those two teams and then (if necessary) utilize the remaining criteria in order.]

From this, Stout, SP and WW would end up 12-4. La Crosse 11-5. Stout (0-2 vs SP, 2-0 vs WW), Stevens Point (0-2 vs. WW, 2-0 vs ST) and Whitewater (0-2 vs. ST, 2-0 vs Point) would all be 2-2 vs. each other. (tie-breaker #1).

Skipping tie-breaker #2 since there isn't anyone ahead of them, and going to tie-breaker #3, Point and Whitewater swept La Crosse, and Stout losing both (in theory)...Stout is eliminated.

Here is where you go wrong...with a team eliminated, it goes back to tie-breaker #1, where Whitewater swept Point. Had they split, then it would go to back to La Crosse, then Oshkosh in decending order...you almost got it! Unless I screwed something up (not likely)

Greek Tragedy · February 13, 2006, 07:50:55 PM

Quote from: PointSpecial on February 13, 2006, 02:48:27 AM
Holy Cow... I'm out of town for the weekend and I miss an amazing Point comeback...

On another board, I think you said you were in Colorado...fly out there for the big weekend double-header when Colorado College played University of Dallas on Friday and UC Santa Cruz on Sunday? Sweet.

frodotwo · February 13, 2006, 11:32:10 PM

I think I like it better if everyone else loses and Point wins, easier to figure that way!

BDB · February 14, 2006, 02:33:40 PM

WIAC Posters-

Coach Eddie Andrist of the BlueDevils is scheduled to be on "Hoopsville" tonight.

He is supposed to be interviewed at about 9:15pm.

Tell your Valentine you love her, but that ya gotta log on to
D3 Hoops. com.

She'll understand.

John Gleich · February 14, 2006, 02:58:54 PM

I'll be listening... my fiance's gotta work. Gee it's nice to have a sugar momma!

Greek Tragedy · February 14, 2006, 04:16:33 PM

Last week's West Regional Rankings and records and what they did since then.

1. Occidental 9-1 16-2...improved to 11-1 with two conference wins. QOWI from 11.100 (7th) to 10.833 (9th).

2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3...fell to 13-2 with a loss at Whitworth, and a win. QOWI from 9.923 (35th) to 9.800 (42nd).

3. Wisconsin-Stout 14-3 17-4...dropped to 15-4 with a home loss to Point, and a win. QOWI from 10.294 (25th) to 9.737 (46th).

4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 15-5 17-5...(I think last week's regional record was wrong) improved to 17-5 with one win last week. QOWI from 10.333 (24th) to 10.227 (25th).

5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4...improved to 16-3 with a win. QOWI from 9.722 (42nd) to 9.842 (40th).

6. Willamette 15-3 14-6...(looks like their regional record could be wrong too) picked up two wins to go to 15-2. QOWI from 9.600 (50th) to 9.353 (70th).

7. Carleton 12-4 15-5...goes to 15-4 with a win. QOWI from 9.778 (40th) 10.000 (35th).

8. Wisconsin-Whitewater 11-5 15-5...two wins goes to 13-5. QOWI from 9.625 (49th) 9.611 (51st).

Big games this week that will effect NEXT week's regional rankings as Puget Sound and Willamette on Friday and La Crosse and Stout go at it on Saturday.

With two road games this week, Whitewater's could go up a little bit more.

Big game in the SCIAC as Claremont-Mudd-Scripps takes on Occidental for the conference lead. If CMS wins out, Occidental is sure to take a Pool C bid.

Stout and La Crosse could swap places, but I don't see much more of a change than that.

Pat Coleman · February 14, 2006, 05:17:40 PM

What's wrong with Willamette's regional record?

Greek Tragedy · February 14, 2006, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Old School on February 14, 2006, 04:16:33 PM
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6...(looks like their regional record could be wrong too) picked up two wins to go to 15-2. QOWI from 9.600 (50th) to 9.353 (70th).

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 05:17:40 PM
What's wrong with Willamette's regional record?

Willamette's regional record was from last week's regional rankings. After two wins on Friday and Saturday, their regional record NOW stands at 15-2, according to this website.

Pat Coleman · February 14, 2006, 06:10:18 PM

This looks like it's probably a typo on the NCAA release. 15-3 in-region and 14-6 overall doesn't even make sense logically.

Greek Tragedy · February 14, 2006, 06:14:32 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 06:10:18 PM
This looks like it's probably a typo on the NCAA release. 15-3 in-region and 14-6 overall doesn't even make sense logically.

True enough.