MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

I don't see why you should break a tie between Oshkosh and Stevens Point using their results against Whitewater before considering their results against each other. That's what not going back to the top results in.

[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.

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.

I was looking at what I thought was the 2009 Archive, since that is what I clicked on, but I was actually getting the 2008 results.

http://www.titans.uwosh.edu/Baseball/Archive.html

Thanks for the correction!!!  That explains why my numbers were different.

[Just Bill]

I don't see why you should break a tie between Oshkosh and Stevens Point using their results against Whitewater before considering their results against each other. That's what not going back to the top results in.

I see that point, only you're not breaking a tie between only OSH and SP. You're breaking a tie between OSH, SP and WW.

I'm just saying in a three-way tie, the three teams are like their own little conference. Since they've all played each other an equal number of times it makes sense to award the seeds based on all those results.

What if we had a three-team conference where WW was 5-3, OSH was 4-4 and SP was 3-5?  We wouldn't grant WW the #1 seed, and then compare of OSH and SP head-to-head, would we?  Of course not, OSH would be the #2 and SP would be the #3 because the criteria and the schedule they've played against each other are all the same. I feel that's how tiebreakers should be run.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't see why you should break a tie between Oshkosh and Stevens Point using their results against Whitewater before considering their results against each other. That's what not going back to the top results in.

I see that point, only you're not breaking a tie between only OSH and SP. You're breaking a tie between OSH, SP and WW.

But you've broken Whitewater from the tie already.

Now you have just two teams. And those two teams played each other head to head. That's the first thing that should be looked at. And that's why most conferences go back to the top after breaking a team out of the tie.

Your three-team conference comment is fairly irrelevant, since it isn't a three-team conference. The tiebreakers between Oshkosh and Stevens Point shouldn't be different just because Whitewater beat Stout, or Superior, or someone else that put them into the tie.

[Just Bill]

I haven't broken WW from the tie, because I believe in evaluating all three teams as a single entity. That makes sense because they are all tied.

I see a three-way tiebreaker as a method to separate three teams.  You see a three-way tiebreaker as a way to separate out just one team.  I don't think that's a good way to do it.

I know I can't convince you, but at least the WIAC basketball coaches see it my way.

(and the NAC for whatever that's worth: http://northernac.org/sports/basketball_men/tournament/BasketballTiebreakingCriteria_10062008.pdf)

[John Gleich]

WW beats Oshkosh 62-50
Point beats Platteville 78-56
LaX beats RF 73-71
Sup beats EC 89-79

[John Gleich]

So here're the updated standings:

Whitewater	12-3
Point	12-3
Stout	8-7
La Crosse	8-7
Platteville	7-8
Superior	7-8
EC	6-9
Oshkosh	5-11
RF	3-12

La Crosse secures a bid to the WIAC tournament.
EC matches up against Stout on Saturday, battling for their playoff life.  If they lose, their done.  If they win, they need either RF to beat Platteville or WW to beat Sup to go to the tiebreaker... Potentially both could happen and we'd have a 3 way tie, I'll let the tiebreak guru's figure it out.

If Stout loses to EC, LaX loses to Point, Platte beats RF and Sup beats WW, then we have a 4 way tie at 8-8 and EC is out... no idea what the tiebreak would be, but I think Stout would get the 3 seed by virtue of beating the #1 seed Point (b/c WW would drop to second if Sup beat them).  That's if it even gets to that... like I said, tiebreak gurus, have your fun with that!

[phoenix_rising]

I checked the men's game periodically from the fieldhouse--where the women kept pace for the first ten minutes--, but whenever I did UWS lost ground. I believe I was a factor in their win at Eau Claire. I stopped looking with 3 minutes left and the score tied at 67 apiece.

You're welcome.

I noticed we rebounded--offensively and defensively. I hope it wasn't a fluke.

[John Gleich]

Wow, Stout up just 8 against 0-22 Silver Lake

[John Gleich]

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

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

After all home teams won last week, all away teams won this week!

Wow, Stout up just 8 against 0-22 Silver Lake

... and just like that, Stout's up 19, 74-55

[John Gleich]

OK, well, we're down to crunch time.  The contingencies are somewhat manageable and the seeding, though more complicated, can be worked out too.

SP and Whitewater will have first round byes.  WW will get the 1 seed if they beat Sup.  Point needs to beat LaX and have WW lose to snag the 1.

La Crosse and Stout are both in.  If they both win then LaX gets the 3 seed by virtue of their sweep of Stout.  But UWL has lost 18 straight against SP going back to the 2001-2002 season, so that might be a tough go, especially with a conference championship on the line for Point.  Things get more complicated if one or both lose and if Platte and or Sup win.

On the other end, if EC loses to Stout then Sup and Platte are in even if they lose.

But let's look at what happens if EC wins and both Sup and Platte lose...

Sup went 2-0 against  EC, split with Platte, and EC and Platte split.  So the three 7-9 teams would be like this head to head:

Sup 3-1
Platte 2-2
EC 1-3

So EC would be out anyway.  The only way I think they're in is if Sup beats WW and gets to 8-8 and Platte loses to RF...  Then they'd be 1-1 against each other and EC's win over WW would get EC that 6 seed.  WW has beaten Sup 9 in a row and 17 of 18, so Sup's longest trip could be a long trip home.

Oh, and I guess I just figred out that Sup has a bid to the WIAC tourney because they would win a tiebreak against EC, so it's just down to EC and Platte.  If EC loses or Platte wins, then the teams are set and we just have to worry about seeding.

So...

SP and WW have first round byes.  If WW wins, they have the top seed.

LaX has the 3 seed with a win.  Stout gets the 3 seed with a win and an LaX loss and the 4 seed if they both win.

Superior is in.

Things get spicier if LaX and Stout both lose and Sup and Platte both win.  I'll look at that after lunch if I have a chance.

[badgerwarhawk]

WHITEWATER typically has a hard time winning in the Kolf Center but last night we came out shooting a blistering 64% from the floor and held the Titans to 6 of 27 (22%) and the first half ended with the WARHAWKS ahead 32-13.  Marsh and Mitchell were each held to just two points.   The WARHAWK lead grew to as many as twentythree points in the second half as the Titans got no closer than the twelve point spread 62-50 at the game's conclusion.

Chris Vine's 13 points paced the WARHAWKS while DJ Dantzler (12) and Phil Negri (11) also finished in double figures.  Negri and Nolan Free each had 4 assists and Negri added 3 steals.  Mitchell and Alex Edmunds each had 7 rebounds to lead the WARHAWKS.  WHITEWATER finished 58.5% from the floor.  

Marsh was the only Titan in double figures with 17 points.

Good to see Chris Vines getting back into the flow of things and making a significant contribution.  We've been thin in the front court and when fouls put one our frontcourt guys on the bench we get a tad short on the floor.   Having Vines back will really help that situation.  

[John Gleich]

OK, so there are some more involved contingencies... if teams tie at 9-7, 8-8, or 7-9.

The easiest is if both Stout and La Crosse win and tie at 9-7.

A1. Lax/Stout

LaX swept Stout, so:

3. LaX
4. Stout

The next easiest is if teams tie at 7-9.  This could be EC/Sup, EC/Platte or EC/Sup/Platte.

B1. EC/Sup:

Sup swept EC so:

6. Sup
Out EC

B2. EC/Platte:

Split H2H 1-1

Platte 3-7 against teams higher
EC 4-6 vs teams higher.

6. EC
Out Platte

B3. EC/Platte/Sup

H2H between the tied teams:

Sup 3-1
Plt 2-2
EC 1-3

5. Sup
6. Plt
Out EC

B4. Sup/Platte

Split H2H 1-1

4. Platte 2-4 vs teams higher
5. Sup 1-5


Now comes the really involved situations... teams tie at 8-8:


C1. Stout/Sup

Stout swept, thus:

3. LaX
4. Stout
5. Sup
6. EC (this situation also contains B2 from above)

C2. Stout vs. Platte

Split H2H 1-1

Stout 2-4 vs. higher   (WW, SP, LaX)
Platte 1-5

3. LaX
4. Stout
5. Platte
6. Sup

C3. Stout/LaX

Same as A1

C4. LaX/Sup

Split H2H 1-1

LaX 2-4 vs. teams higher  (WW, SP, Stout)
Sup 2-4

Sup would have to beat WW for this contingency, so they would get the 4 seed and LaX the 5 based on the third tiebreak criteria.

C5. LaX/Platte

Split H2H 1-1

LaX 2-4 vs teams higher
Platte 1-5

4. LaX
5. Platte

C6. Sup/Platte

Split H2H 1-1

Both teams now 2-4 vs. teams higher

Sup gets the 4 seed by virtue of W over WW

Now the real fun starts...

C7. LaX/Stout/Platte

3. La Crosse (3-1)
4. Platte (2-2)
5. Stout (1-3)
6. Sup

C8. LaX/Sup/Platte

All teams 2-2 in H2H

LaX 2-4 vs teams higher
Sup 1-5 (by virtue of W vs WW)
Platte 1-5
So LaX tie broken

Still tied 1-1 in H2H

Both 2-6 vs teams seeded ahead

Tie broken B/C of Sup's W over WW:

3. Stout
4. LaX
5. Sup
6. Platte

C9. Stout/Sup/Platte

4. Stout 3-1
5. Platte 2-2
6. Sup 1-3

C10. LaX/Stout/Sup

3. LaX (3-1 vs teams tied)
4. Stout (2-2)
5. Sup (1-3)
6. EC

C11. Stout/LaX/Platte/Sup

3. LaX 4-2
Stout 3-3
Platte 3-3
6. Sup 2-4

Now Stout and Platte are rematched, and it's C2 all over again.

Teams split

Stout 2-4 vs teams higher
Platte 1-5

3. LaX
4. Stout
5. Platte
6. Sup

[John Gleich]

See above, merged into the previous post.

Do you see any contingencies I missed?

[phoenix_rising]

So, just to make sure I'm clear on this, all we (Superior) have to do is beat Whitewater. There.

OK. Well. OK.