MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Just Bill]

Are you sure? Most conferences revert back to the top head-to-head after breaking one team out of a three-way tie.

Yes, I'm sure.  If the three-way comparison results in all three teams being separated on the basis of the same criteria, then the three-way is considered solved. See PointSpecial's post above.

[John Gleich]

Tonight's results:

UW-Oshkosh 68, UW-Superior 61
UW-Platteville 75, UW-Stout 73
UW-Stevens Point 68, UW-River Falls 47
UW-Whitewater 81, UW-Eau Claire 69

So here're the updated standings:

Whitewater	11-3
Point	11-3
Stout	8-7
La Crosse	7-7
Platteville	7-7
EC	6-8
Superior	6-8
Oshkosh	5-10
RF	3-11

Some quick initial thoughts...  RF is eliminated from the conference tournament.  Oshkosh is still potentially alive (depending on tie-breakers).  They would need to win out and have either EC or Sup lose out.  The second requirement is possible... EC and Sup play on Wednesday, so the loser of that game would just have to lose one more to end the year 6-10.  Oshkosh, on the other hand, hosts Whitewater Wednesday... which would seemingly be a much more difficult feat than EC losing to Stout on Saturday, or Sup losing at WW.

Also, Stout's loss as well as Point and Whitewater's wins mean that Stout cannot win the conference via a tie (however unlikely that was) and Point and WW will each have a first round bye in the conference tournament.

Stout is guaranteed a conference tournament spot by virtue of EC and Superior's losses because even if Stout loses to EC next Saturday, the Blue Devils will be at 8-8... and the best that the loser of Wednesday's EC/Sup match up can do is 7-9.

[frodotwo]

WIAC Tournament Handbook

SEEDING

Teams will be seeded 1 through 6 based on the final regular season conference standings.  If necessary, the following tie-breaker criteria will be applied to determine entry into the tournament or to seed teams with identical records:

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).
   
[Note:  When comparing tied teams against positions lower in the standings which are also tied, those "lower tied positions" shall be considered as a "single position" for purposes of comparison.  Example:  Team A and Team B tied for second would compare against Team X and Team Y tied for sixth as follows: Team A would compare its combined record against both X and Y versus Team B's combined record against both X and Y.]

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 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.]

I think the tie is broken with the first criteria (in the highly unlikely hypothetical situation).  Since Stout and Point aren't tied with the first criteria, then it would be 1.WW 2.Stout 3.SP

Moot point after today's results.

Pointers take care of business with in-your-face defense that hounded Guerin into frustration fouls late in the game. He got 3 fouls in a 2 minute span and they were obvious calls, kinda like a bull in a china shop. Referees had a bad night, missing several obvious calls on each team. The result was a let 'em play game. Scott Hoelzel was an early spark with tough D and several boards (42-24 edge for Point) and an alley oop dunk on a pass from Jenkins. Hurd found his shooting touch and led all scorers with 22.  The big negative - free throw shooting - 52% that could be costly if it doesn't improve. Less than 60% shooting from the line in the last 5 games.  Koonkaew was the only bright spot for the Falcons with 18 pts, whose second half included at least 5 unforced errors throwing the ball out of bounds.

[John Gleich]

Home win = +0
Road win = +1
Home loss = -1
Road loss = +0

Whitewater	+4	(6-1 at home, 5-2 on the road)
Stevens Point	+3	(7-1 at home, 4-2 on the road)
Stout	+1	(5-2 at home, 3-5 on the road)
Platteville	+1	(5-1 at home, 2-6 on the road)
La Crosse	+0	(4-3 at home, 3-4 on the road)
Eau Claire	-1	(4-3 at home, 2-5 on the road)
Superior	-2	(5-3 at home, 1-5 on the road)
Oshkosh	-2	(3-4 at home, 2-6 on the road)
River Falls	-4	(1-6 at home, 2-5 on the road)

No change, all home teams won.

[chmarx]

Wow.  Things have livened up here.

Maybe its Valentine's induced hormones! 

[Greek Tragedy]

Apparently my memory didn't serve me correctly!  Thanks for the corrections...not that it mattered! 

[uww4ever]

could ww still host a pod?  I'm curious, cuz usually a top ten team and depending on who's in the pod, ww has hosted 2 pods in my life down here (i think they won the conference tourney in both years, but it's such a weird season cuz ww lost to rf, ec, and stout and not the big boys of the conference), and both times it was great to see them get it and they were a great host.  Would WW have to run the table?  It seems that either SP or WW is deserving of it, but it's all up in the air with the final couple of weeks for positioning.

GO HAWKS!

[badgerwarhawk]

DuPree Fletcher came off the bench to score 27 points and lead the WARHAWKS to a 81-69 win over Eau Claire.  Fletcher was 8-11 from the floor including 6-7 from beyond the arch.  As a team the WARHAWKS were 10 of 18 on three pointers and finished the game 58.5% from the floor.   EauClaire's largest lead in the first half was six points at the 11:54 mark but a pair of three pointers framing a jumper from Fletcher put the WARHAWKS on top with a lead that grew to twelve points 46-34 by the end of the half.  With one exception the WARHAWKS maintained a double digit lead that grew to as many as 19 points throughout the second stanza. 

Dustin Mitchell added 16 points and missed his eleventh double-double by a single rebound.  DJ Dantzler added 11 points and Phil Negri recorded 8 assists. 

[John Gleich]

could ww still host a pod?  I'm curious, cuz usually a top ten team and depending on who's in the pod, ww has hosted 2 pods in my life down here (i think they won the conference tourney in both years, but it's such a weird season cuz ww lost to rf, ec, and stout and not the big boys of the conference), and both times it was great to see them get it and they were a great host.  Would WW have to run the table?  It seems that either SP or WW is deserving of it, but it's all up in the air with the final couple of weeks for positioning.

GO HAWKS!

It's possible... but it depends on who makes the tournament and how they stack up.  If Whitewater wins out and wins the conference tournament, then it looks pretty good for them.  Whitewater has been the top seed in the West for the first two regional rankings, so they seemingly would have the best shot in the West.

[cubs]

Oshkosh is still potentially alive (depending on tie-breakers).  They would need to win out and have either EC or Sup lose out.  The second requirement is possible... EC and Sup play on Wednesday, so the loser of that game would just have to lose one more to end the year 6-10.  

Oshkosh is already out.....  Best they can finish is 6-10, and either Eau Claire or Superior is going to win Wednesday, which would put six teams with seven wins or more.

[cubs]

Technicality point:

Whitewater would have a 3-1 record, Stout would have a 2-2 record and Point would be just 1-3.  Tie would go to Whitewater.  Then you'd need a tie-breaker against Stout and Point and Stout would win that one based on a better record of teams above them...1-1 vs. Whitewater, while Point would be 0-2.  Got all that?

You wouldn't need to compare Point and Stout in your second step.  The first step adequately resolves the three way tiebreaker (WW 3-1, Stout 2-2, SP 1-3).  There's no need to then compare Stout and Point. The first step has already spearated the three seeds.  You would only revert back to the head-to-head if for example Stout and Point were both 1-3 as in (WW 4-0, Stout 1-3, SP 1-3).

I'm not so sure about that....  Last baseball season, Oshkosh, Whitewater, and Point all ended 15-7 for a tri-Championship.  Head-to-head was Whitewater 5-3, Oshkosh 5-3 and Point 2-6.  Whitewater earned the #1 seed by virtue of a better record against Platteville (4-0 vs 3-1.)  That makes sense, but somehow, Point then got the #2 seed over Oshkosh despite the fact that Oshkosh beat them three out of four times during the regular season.

[Just Bill]

The baseball rule is written differently than the basketball rule.  In baseball they do revert back to the top.  I have no idea why they are different, but they are.  Here's the baseball wording:

[Note: If two teams remain tied after a third or other teams are eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to criteria No. 1. For example, if three teams are tied and have 5-3, 4-4, 3-5 head -to-head records, the 5-3 receives highest seed. The tie between the two remaining teams is broken by reverting back to criteria #1 (head-to-head between those two teams) and then (if necessary) utilizing the remaining criteria in order.]

Section IV, letter C, No. 2
http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/200910Code.pdf

[John Gleich]

Oshkosh is still potentially alive (depending on tie-breakers).  They would need to win out and have either EC or Sup lose out.  The second requirement is possible... EC and Sup play on Wednesday, so the loser of that game would just have to lose one more to end the year 6-10.  

Oshkosh is already out.....  Best they can finish is 6-10, and either Eau Claire or Superior is going to win Wednesday, which would put six teams with seven wins or more.

You're right, I forgot that my previous contingencies from last week included both the loser of EC/Sup and Platte to lose out and Osh to win out.  well, both EC and Sup lost and Osh won... but UWP didn't hold up their end of the bargain.  So we're back to out more simplified 4-team, 2-game tournament for 3 spots.  Platte and LaX are both in with a win. 

The EC/Sup loser needs to win on Sat and have the other lose to force a tiebreak, or win and have either Platte or LaX lose out for the tie break too. 

Whatever the case, the seedinf is going to come down to tiebreakers for sure... and possibky even the bid.  Sup will be in dire straights if they lose to EC b/c they have Whitewater @ WW on Sat... not the best matchup if your team is in a must win situation.

[cubs]

The baseball rule is written differently than the basketball rule.  In baseball they do revert back to the top.  I have no idea why they are different, but they are.  Here's the baseball wording:

[Note: If two teams remain tied after a third or other teams are eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to criteria No. 1. For example, if three teams are tied and have 5-3, 4-4, 3-5 head -to-head records, the 5-3 receives highest seed. The tie between the two remaining teams is broken by reverting back to criteria #1 (head-to-head between those two teams) and then (if necessary) utilizing the remaining criteria in order.]

Section IV, letter C, No. 2
http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/200910Code.pdf

So can you explain to me how Oshkosh got the #3 seed last season despite beating Point three out of four times during the regular season?  I still haven't been able to figure that one out.

[Just Bill]

The baseball rule is written differently than the basketball rule.  In baseball they do revert back to the top.  I have no idea why they are different, but they are.  Here's the baseball wording:

[Note: If two teams remain tied after a third or other teams are eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to criteria No. 1. For example, if three teams are tied and have 5-3, 4-4, 3-5 head -to-head records, the 5-3 receives highest seed. The tie between the two remaining teams is broken by reverting back to criteria #1 (head-to-head between those two teams) and then (if necessary) utilizing the remaining criteria in order.]

Section IV, letter C, No. 2
http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/200910Code.pdf

So can you explain to me how Oshkosh got the #3 seed last season despite beating Point three out of four times during the regular season?  I still haven't been able to figure that one out.

The first issue is your memory is faulty.  Point beat Oshkosh 3 out of 4 last season.

UWSP 12, UWO 10: http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/oshstp1.htm
UWO 9, UWSP 6: http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/oshstp2.htm
UWSP 11, UWO 0: http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/oshstp3.htm
UWSP 2, UWO 0: http://www.wiacsports.com/baseball/oshstp4.htm

The head-to-head-to-head went like this:
WW 5-3
OSH 4-4
SP 3-5

If this were WIAC basketball, we'd be done with tiebreakers (which is how I personally believe it should be done as you'll see below). WW is #1, OSH is #2 and SP is #3.

But the way the WIAC baseball rules are written state that you only separate out one team, and then revert back to head-to-head between the remaining two.  So WW was awardeed the top seed.  Then you compare SP and OSH, where SP held a 3-1 advantage, as shown above.  There you have it.

IMO, the basketball method is better.  You've compared three times based on the same criteria, and come up with a very clear 1-2-3 order.  I don't see any reason to revert back to the top. But I know many leagues only use a head-to-head-to-head tiebreaker to pull out one team which I think defies logic.  If you've used the same criteria and have a clear separation in that criteria for all three spots, then you should be done.