MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[stoutfan1]

POTY- Chas Cross - PLT
COTY- Semling -SP

All-Conference

Chas Cross- PLT
Alex Oman- ST
Trevor Hass- SP
Jarrod Peterson- SUP
Luke Knoble- WW
Zach Peterson- RF
Jeff Heiden- LC
Clayton Heuer- SP
Quardell Young- WW
Erik Olson/Chris Hortman- ST **

Honorable Mention

Erik Olson/Chris Hortman- ST **
Cory Nickel- OSH
Bronson Byrne- SUP
Luke Tweed- LC
Jordan Peterson- EC
KJ Evans- WW
Joe Ritchay- SP
Arik Smith- RF
Nick Craggs- EC


There may be more Honorable Mentions.... Coaches might just have to vote for some players that just happened to play well against them in each individual game. All the numbers are so similar

**I see most of the coaches voting for Oman without a problem, but between Olson and Hortman I don't know enough about the process. Both seniors, but Olson has been in the league all 4 years. Hortman ended 3rd in scoring, but coaches understand the importance of Olsons leadership on the floor and was 1st in assists. I don't see 3 Stout players getting in although that would be very nice if it were to happen 

[Greek Tragedy]

Another questionable game by Stout. Didn't get to watch it, but from stats and other sources it wasn't a great game. The important thing is we got the W. Now the Devils head to WW on Thursday for another showdown. Hopefully we can get the lead again and actually maintain it this time 

The way Titan Q has his Pool C predictions, Stout will need a win over regionally ranked Whitewater just to have a shot at that Pool C spot.

[havej]

stoutfan1 - I would definitely vote in all 3 Stout players as First Teamers.  As I've stated before, the best players from the best teams should get the recognition.  To that end, my 10 first teamers would be from the top 5 squads.  The top 5 garnered 58 of the possible 72 wins during the conference season which shows a clear distinction between the top five and the bottom four.

Interesting fact as the bottom four went a combined 2-38 against Point, WW, Stout, LAX, and Platteville.

As a frame of reference, how many players from Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, and Penn State will receive All Big Ten recognition this year?

[stoutfan1]

stoutfan1 - I would definitely vote in all 3 Stout players as First Teamers.  As I've stated before, the best players from the best teams should get the recognition.  To that end, my 10 first teamers would be from the top 5 squads.  The top 5 garnered 58 of the possible 72 wins during the conference season which shows a clear distinction between the top five and the bottom four.

Interesting fact as the bottom four went a combined 2-38 against Point, WW, Stout, LAX, and Platteville.

As a frame of reference, how many players from Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, and Penn State will receive All Big Ten recognition this year?

I would agree with that for the most part, but do you really want to penalize the great individual players just because they were on a losing team? With that said, the only 2 players that really jump off the page that arent on the top 5 teams are Zach Peterson from RF (13.8 ppg good for 6th and 7.1 rpg good for 2nd in conference play) and Jarrod Peterson from SUP (13.4 ppg (7th) and 4.9 rpg (10th) in conference play. Obviously winning teams have the advantage and should, but if you look at the top 5 teams (SP, LAX, WW, ST, PLT) can you really say there are 10 guys on these 5 teams that CLEARLY deserve it more than 1 or 2 other guys from the "losing" teams?

Not arguing with you Havej, just another way of looking at it I think 

[havej]

Good points definitely stoutfan - different angles to consider are always a good thing.  I happen to overlook the stats part of it with guys on lesser teams because as Jeff Van Gundy would say "someone has to get points and rebounds for those teams".

And yes, I can come up with 10 guys from the top 5 squads that every coach in the league would love to have - and their value is not always measured by points and rebounds.  Are they efficient, do they play the right way, how do they impact the game, does their team suffer if they aren't on the floor?

If you want to look at a stat, start with minutes played as a gauge as to an individual's worth to his team.  As you know, this is a very competitive league and coaches are playing the guys that give his team the best opportunity to get Ws.

These are things I know coaches consider heavily when voting.

Definitely not arguing stoutfan, just enjoy a good basketball discussion.

[stoutfan1]

OK, Im not really knowledgable about everything that goes into Pool C bids and everything, but I am a little confused on Buena Vistas ranking ahead of Stout. http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html this website shows that BV is in Pool A, but within Pool C position. Again, Im not really sure what that all means so if I am off on something please correct me.

1. Both teams are 18-6 in Region and 19-6 Overall (Stout actually just won its 20th game with the victory over Superior last night)
2. The IIAC has NO teams ranked in the top 25
3. BV's 6 loses came to 4 unranked teams, Stevens Point, and Carthage. Stouts have come to WW 2x, SP 2x, LAX, and Loras (WW and SP obviously ranked in the top 25 all season).
4. BV has a 2 point win over Superior (who finished 6th in the WIAC) and Stout has beat them by 15, 14, and 14 respectively.
5. Stout has a "bad loss" to Loras by 7, BV beat them twice by 3 and 5.
6. Stout has wins over Luther, Dubuque, and Simpson by 30, 19, and 10. BV Split with Luther and Dubuque and swept Simpson (by 12 and 2 in OT).
7. Both have wins over Gustavus
8. Stout has the best defense in the best conference in D3 Basketball.

If they are both getting Pool C consideration, how is Stout not the first choice over BV?

[Pat Coleman]

1. Both teams are 18-6 in Region and 19-6 Overall (Stout actually just won its 20th game with the victory over Superior last night)
2. The IIAC has NO teams ranked in the top 25
3. BV's 6 loses came to 4 unranked teams, Stevens Point, and Carthage. Stouts have come to WW 2x, SP 2x, LAX, and Loras (WW and SP obviously ranked in the top 25 all season).
4. BV has a 2 point win over Superior (who finished 6th in the WIAC) and Stout has beat them by 15, 14, and 14 respectively.
5. Stout has a "bad loss" to Loras by 7, BV beat them twice by 3 and 5.
6. Stout has wins over Luther, Dubuque, and Simpson by 30, 19, and 10. BV Split with Luther and Dubuque and swept Simpson (by 12 and 2 in OT).
7. Both have wins over Gustavus
8. Stout has the best defense in the best conference in D3 Basketball.

If they are both getting Pool C consideration, how is Stout not the first choice over BV?

Check out the link to the FAQ in my profile here and get some idea of how the playoff selection process works. Meanwhile, I've crossed out the irrelevant items. Some of the items are relevant but clearly a wash.

[stoutfan1]

Good points definitely stoutfan - different angles to consider are always a good thing.  I happen to overlook the stats part of it with guys on lesser teams because as Jeff Van Gundy would say "someone has to get points and rebounds for those teams".

And yes, I can come up with 10 guys from the top 5 squads that every coach in the league would love to have - and their value is not always measured by points and rebounds.  Are they efficient, do they play the right way, how do they impact the game, does their team suffer if they aren't on the floor?

If you want to look at a stat, start with minutes played as a gauge as to an individual's worth to his team.  As you know, this is a very competitive league and coaches are playing the guys that give his team the best opportunity to get Ws.

These are things I know coaches consider heavily when voting.

Definitely not arguing stoutfan, just enjoy a good basketball discussion.

I realize stats are not always the most important thing in the game. I recall Nick Krull from Stevens Point getting All-Conference recognition his senior year and his stats were minimal at best. But he was (in my mind) the player that made point a championship team with his defense, intelligence, and intangibles. Very true some player has to get the points and rebounds whether you are on a good or bad team and a players numbers may differ if on a different team, but then you have to look at it from the other side as well.

This is just an example and not taking shots at anyone so please no one take offense......
EX: If you take Jarrod Peterson from SUP and place him on Points team how much better/worse do his numbers and "worth" become?
If you take Austin Ryf or Alex Richard from SP and place one of them on Oshkosh are they as good without as much talent around them? Is their worth increased or decreased? Still an All-Conference candidate?

Just a couple examples of hypotheticals that good players on GREAT talent teams might be average players on below average talent teams. Or Good players on GREAT teams may be GREAT players on Bad teams.

[Just Bill]

The biggest hole on Stout's resume is a win over a nationally top tier team. "Who have you beat?" is always a stronger argument than "Who have you lost to?" or "Who have you almost beat?" That's why this UW-Whitewater game is so crucial.

[cubs]

All of the talk about Stout's Pool C chances, makes me think back to 2007 when a second place WIAC team (who went 21-6 on the season) was left on the outside looking in.... 

[Greek Tragedy]

Two key stats in this week's regional rankings that just came out.

BV SOS .561
ST SOS .536

Thats a pretty big gap.

BV rec vs regionally ranked opp. 1-2
ST rec vs regionally ranked opp. 1-4

BV could get another shot at Luther (previously ranked)
ST gets Whitewater, reg ranked as well.

Just hope BV gets the Pool A. If they lose and go to Pool C, they may stay ranked ahead of Stout. This means BV has to get selected before Stout even gets a shot.

[Greek Tragedy]

As it stands today, Stout sits 6th in the West Regional Rankings. However, 4 of 5 teams arw conference leaders and "expected" Pool A contenders. What does this mean for Stout? Hoping everything is chalk, St. Thomas, Stevens Point, Whitworth and Buena Vista all win their conference tourneys amd Pool A slots. That only leaves Whitewater, predicted to go as one of the first Pool C selections. This puts Stout at the Pool C table very early in the process. Of course this also means 18 other teams, after Whitewater, could get selected ahead of Stout. But at least they are at the table!

[Pat Coleman]

All of the talk about Stout's Pool C chances, makes me think back to 2007 when a second place WIAC team (who went 21-6 on the season) was left on the outside looking in....

Tournament is a little bigger now and there are more at-large bids.

Also, keep in mind the selection criteria -- that runner-up was 21-6 overall, but 18-6 in-region.
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/UW-Oshkosh/Men/2006-07/index

Thirdly, because Oshkosh lost to La Crosse three times, there was no way Oshkosh was considered the first at-large candidate out of the conference. This was who the real conference runner-up was in the eyes of the selection criteria:
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/UW-La_Crosse/Men/2006-07/index

[Greek Tragedy]

I remember there being a lot of debate about that. The optimists were hoping the NCAA would take both. There was no way they could take one over the other, so they ended up canceling each other out and neither went...and probably rightfully so.

[cubs]

All of the talk about Stout's Pool C chances, makes me think back to 2007 when a second place WIAC team (who went 21-6 on the season) was left on the outside looking in....

Tournament is a little bigger now and there are more at-large bids.

Also, keep in mind the selection criteria -- that runner-up was 21-6 overall, but 18-6 in-region.
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/UW-Oshkosh/Men/2006-07/index

Thirdly, because Oshkosh lost to La Crosse three times, there was no way Oshkosh was considered the first at-large candidate out of the conference. This was who the real conference runner-up was in the eyes of the selection criteria:
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/UW-La_Crosse/Men/2006-07/index

As usual, I don't disagree with anything you say..... 

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had there been as many Pool C bids then as there is now...