All Americans

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I can appreciate that answer as well as the fact that you try to put together actual teams. I wasn't comparing them to guards, Schner was just the name mentioned in a prior comment so I ran with him. I would also have to mention the fact that Yeshiva considers Ryan Turrell a point guard even though he is listed at forward on this First-Team. I would swap him and Fravert and then swap Flynn with Nate Shafer on the 4th team, despite the fact that Flynn as directly compared to Shafer is a better basketball player, I would just have to factor in the team success a little more heavily. Luke Rogers would also have to be in that conversation as well, Tufts did win the NESCAC.

Lebron James is a point-forward, right? But we go with how they are given to us as positions. Turell is listed as a guard. Though, in this day in age, a forward running an offense like a point guard isn't all that unquie. There are a lot more of them now. Turell is perfect where is his and if we did compare him to Fravert, I think I would still have Turell ahead. Especially considering he can run the offense, shoot from outside, and tear it up inside. Having seen both players a lot ... I have always left being more wowed and impressed with Turell. (I have no idea if Fravert has DI offers, but Turell had a number of them he turned down to play at Yeshiva. He is a very good talent.)

And team's success if factored... again, UWO went from 5-5 to WIAC champions ... you don't think that isn't factored over just looking at a raw 20-9 number? It works both ways. We look at 20-9 and then understand it better. Just as I look at a team that is 20-9 and realize they weren't strong all season. UWO figured things out after a lot of changes from the first ten games and was one of the two best teams in the WIAC. We are considering that ...

And Luke Rogers was on our All-America teams.

I have no problem with Jack Flynn being named an All-American in addition to Adam Fravert. My issue is with Flynn being on the second team. There are so many good players and so many good teams and Oshkosh did not have a season of team success worthy of two Second-Team selections.

I don't necessarily agree as I've stated already. Winning the WIAC indicates the season was pretty darn good and it wasn't like they were a Cinderella six-seed. Sure, the opening ten games weren't great ... but they figured things out even after losing Duax and succeeded in arguably the toughest conference in the country. Split stats also show Flynn improved during the season as the team improved. He also had a pretty good NCAA tournament despite losing to NCC ... and we do take into account the NCAA tournament (even if it was only two games) as we always have.

And when we looked at it, I don't think we could argue the forwards behind Flynn were better than Flynn.

[WUPHF]

I know you made the Central Region reference, but I guess I am trying to figure how that would have mattered had he been a Central Region player.  But, no matter.

So, you cannot remove the WIAC co-player of the year from the third team?

Matthew Schner was the UAA co-player of the year...the UAA coaches thought he was just as good as third-team Jack Nolan.

By the way, I hope you are still light-hearted and hour after you responded the first time because we are just talking about basketball here.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I agree with SpringSt. Flynn was 16 and 6. Like how about Danyon Hempy from Wooster, a team that was quite comparable to Oshkosh, THIS YEAR. I understand he's a great player but I'm picking nits cause what else do we have to do?

Hempy is a guard ... not comparable. And Flynn wasn't chosen because of last year ... I assure you.

And you don't have to pick nits at all, right? HAHA I get you are bored ...

I pick nits because I care! I love awards and think about them probably too much, so at this point I am looking for some discourse and reasoning behind them. I get the position and make a team angle, but players are becoming less and less position rigid these days. To leave off a player entirely like Jubie and add Kent Hanson due to position, when they play the same position in all reality, is a disservice in my eyes.

But at the same time, you guys need to be as objective as possible throughout the process and I'm sure you use positions designated by the teams. You can't watch all the games so there needs to be some process laid out. So yes, trying to use G and F for the teams makes a wing designation tough to decipher, but that's where most of the guys play. I understand how this could make her choices.

I watch more games than I really should ... because I'm sure my family would like me to spend a little more time being sane. (My son is starting to watch games as well, this could become a problem in the house LOL).

I think I saw very few players in the AA teams not play this season. I try not to just go by numbers and certainly we don't just pick those with the best numbers. In fact, we only have four of the five top scorers in the country on our All-America teams and number-one is in the honorable mention section ... because we do realize the nuiances and we do understand that every team, schedule, conference, etc. is different.

The problem with "wing" is everyone would use that if able and it would actually make it FAR more difficult. Then the arguments in our conversations and from others would be "but you have all guards on that team" and "there is no way four forwards and a guard would be on the floor" because we do all know where "wings" play.

But I disagree that everyone is playing the wing ... as I stated earlier. I have been tempted to mention to one coach to stop listing several of his players wings because they never leave the arc .. and another to stop because some of his players never leave the paint. Sure, there are motions and movements that put players everywhere on the floor. Players want to be heros and will shoot the three point shot. And many have adapted their game, especially in DIII, to be available anywhere on the floor ... but that doesn't mean we still don't have guys who are primarily guards and those who are primarily forwards, even if sometimes where they are on the floor changes that look from time to time.

[SpringSt7]

Jack Flynn, Oshkosh (20-9), WIAC Champs, Round of 32 appearance: 16.6 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 0.8 bpg, 54.4 FG%

Luke Rogers, Tufts (23-6), NESCAC Champs, Sweet 16 (and counting): 16.6 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 57.6 FG%

I think you could pretty clearly argue Rogers was better than Flynn---and I don't even like Rogers!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

So, you cannot remove the WIAC co-player of the year from the third team?

Matthew Schner was the UAA co-player of the year...the UAA coaches thought he was just as good as third-team Jack Nolan.

By the way, I hope you are still light-hearted and hour after you responded the first time because we are just talking about basketball here.

No... I'm saying I'm not sure we could remove Voelker from the All-America team, period. His body of work along with being a Co-WIAC Player of the Year seems to indicate he's good enough, right?

I am being light hearted while giving real answers ... I'm not taking it that seriously. But I do wish when people respond "so and so should be on the team" it comes with the consideration and the suggestion of who should be removed... because that is toughest part of all of this.

BTW - even moving Voelker down a team doesn't solve the problem ... someone would have to be removed. Schner had a good season, but he seemed to fade in the second half. Most of his 15.5 points came in the first two months of the season. He was averaging 17.3 in November and 18.0 in December. Hit the UAA schedule and suddenly he was at 13.7, 14.5, 13.5 the next few months. When we were having to nit-pick, that was part of our consideration. I can't say where the inconsistency was .. but sadly, when trying to shoehorn 50 guys into a 25-member team ... things like that are considered.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Jack Flynn, Oshkosh (20-9), WIAC Champs, Round of 32 appearance: 16.6 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 0.8 bpg, 54.4 FG%

Luke Rogers, Tufts (23-6), NESCAC Champs, Sweet 16 (and counting): 16.6 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 57.6 FG%

I think you could pretty clearly argue Rogers was better than Flynn---and I don't even like Rogers!

Against similar competition, right?

Rogers also shot 46.7% from the FT line.

[SpringSt7]

Tufts had an SOS of 0.594, which would be 3rd in the country according to Matt Snyder. Oshkosh had a 0.601, 2nd in the country, while obviously giving them props for their absurd 0.633 non-conference SOS.

I guess free throw shooting was the deal breaker---not doubling up in rebounds, tripling in blocks, or averaging the same amount of points on a better percentage.

Dave I can't believe you've got me arguing so fervently for Luke Rogers! Oshkosh just shouldn't have two guys in the first two teams. They simply weren't good enough. Hunter Hill and Ben Ryan last did it for Augustana in 2016---they were 29-2 and went to the Elite 8. That type of team success seems to make a lot more sense.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'd say all the arguments are pretty fair.

It didn't all end up the way I would've chosen, either.

[Smitty Oom]

I am being light hearted while giving real answers ... I'm not taking it that seriously. But I do wish when people respond "so and so should be on the team" it comes with the consideration and the suggestion of who should be removed... because that is toughest part of all of this.

I love discussions like this and appreciate understanding the thought process you guys used. I agree with 90% of the sections and you will never make everyone happy. Glad you are staying light hearted as well know it can be tough to convey tone through messages, especially when we can disagree on things.

I personally think Flynn is too high, but so be it. I can live with that one, it's not that bad in my eyes. He would probably be on my 4th or HM team.

The one that I really can't understand is Kent Hanson though. Carleton was 11-14, 8-12 in conference that was very top heavy (sans UST and SJU MIAC was down this year for sure) and didn't even make the 6 team conf playoffs. Calvin was at least a good team and above .500 and made their conf tourney. Kent Hanson has a great senior year, 20/8 with very efficient shooting numbers, but I look at every other team on this list and they are very good. I just don't think he fits in. So when I say I think Jubie was snubbed, as you said I need to knock someone off, and that's Kent Hanson. Jubie is listed as a wing on the roster for SJU, if you can list Turell (who coach Eliot has notes as the team PG previously) and Rairdon as F I think Jubie is definitely eligible for that designation. Even so, off the top of my head I definitely think Connor Sepiel of Witt would be more deserving given his team's great success this year. He definitely is a F! Lol 😂

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'll say two things:

1) I don't personally like to associate team success with individual awards (too much).

2) You would be amazed at how unexpectedly great your mind can change when you spend a couple hours with a group of people actually hashing these things out.

[Titan Q]

Tufts had an SOS of 0.594, which would be 3rd in the country according to Matt Snyder. Oshkosh had a 0.601, 2nd in the country, while obviously giving them props for their absurd 0.633 non-conference SOS.

Massey SOS:

Oshkosh #1

Tufts #25

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2020/ncaa-d3/ratings

[Titan Q]

From the game watching I did this year, I thought Jack Flynn was the best 5-man in the country.  His combination of size, strength, and skill is something I didn't see anywhere else. 

I believe Flynn was the hardest 5 to gameplan against, because you absolutely can't let him be one-on-one in the low post with the ball.  You have to build your entire defense around preventing him from getting it there, and once he does get it you absolutely have to double. 

Based on Flynn's numbers and overall impact vs the toughest schedule in the country, and the fact he helped his team to a 2nd place regular season finish and conference tournament title in the best league in the country, 2nd Team seems good to me.

The All-American team is a completely subjective exercise.  The way one person, or panel, sees things is always going to be different than how another person or panel sees it.

[Titan Q]

A few other thoughts...

1) I have always loved the intent of the D3hoops.com Top 25 to construct 5 teams that could actually play a game.  Meaning instead of the 1st Team having 5 guards, you reward the value of all positions.  This is how the teams should be constructed in my opinion.

2) I don't love the D3hoops crew being tied to whatever position is on the roster.  There is too much inconsistency in the way players are listed on rosters.  I think about IWU's roster.  Doug Wallen is listed as a G, and Wallen is a big, physical player who plays the 4...sometimes 3.  He is as F as there is...not a G.  Not sure why they call him a G.  I see this kind of thing across every roster.  Gs that should be Fs...Fs that should be Gs...Fs that should be Cs...some teams have "wings"..etc. Based on this, I think the end product ends up being flawed to some degree.

3) I think some positions on the floor are undervalued to some degree.  For example, I think PGs get squeezed by higher scoring SGs - not much value placed on the stud pure PG (the guy who dominates the game by being a stud ball handler, distributor, floor general).  I think some pure centers (5s) - the dominant back-to-basket guy that that scores 14 ppg and shoots near .550 and creates huge problems for the opposing defense - get squeezed at times by higher scoring face-the-basket forwards. Etc.

4) I think D3hoops should establish a position for each player -- PG, SG, G/F (wing), PF, F/C (we can debate what the positions are called another time - I don't think it would be hard to define this really clearly).   Defining a position for every AA candidate is not hard to do nowadays with every team having video streaming.  I would love to see more rigor put around positions, and then reward players across all 5 positions.  Shouldn't all 5 All-American teams have a PG, for example?  Shouldn't all 5 teams have a low post F or F/C or C type...vs slotting a guy at the 5 who is a wing/3 because he is a "F"?  I think it would help to give every AA candidate a more clearly defined position and then pick from there.

Just some thoughts for consideration on how to take what is already a really good process and make it better.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

We don't always lock guys into their nominated positions,  but do try to respect the category the nominator puts them in. I know we've moved wings back and forth in the past when warranted.

One year,  at least, i tried to get the true pg slot marked out, but we found it really isn't as cut and dry as we'd like to think.

[Pat Coleman]

The number of what I would consider true point guards -- guys who put up huge assist totals that we find credible and can also score -- has really gone down in Division III in the past 15 years or so. Similarly, we all know about back-to-the-basket guys across basketball, which makes a true 1-5 on every team really difficult to achieve.

On the same token, it also highlights the value of a guy such as Flynn. Would Oshkosh have even been in position to get as far as it did without both those guys? I think we know the answer and that's why both those guys are elevated.

Could Rogers have been higher? Yes. But I -- and this is me personally, you can take me to task on this if you like -- really value free-throw shooting.

And as others have said -- team success is definitely a thing, but it is not what we are generally trying to measure here. Yes, great teams have great players, but not-great teams also have great players. We didn't eliminate Carleton at 11-14, Gordon at 13-14, Calvin at 15-11.