MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Late nite]

I would zone the Redmen---flared 1-2-2 ---Fendley has taken 67% of his shots from behind the 3 point line and Bowens over 50%---Take all the shots you want from the corner---Take away their strength and see how they do when they have to put it on the floor and score among the big guys or from the FT area---They'll get some looks but you'll take them out of their comfort zone a little bit---Just one man's opinion

Mwunder- You make a great point about Basketball 101 and 5 guys packing down into the lane, but what happens when Bowens or Fendley are making 3 after 3? Then the defenders will have to go out and pressure the 3 point area. This then opens up the lane for Steve to penetrate and take it to the hole. With Steve being a smart player he won't force much if there isn't anything there, or he will dish it off to Neb, or to a shooter in the corner if he does get in the lane but is being guarded.

Steve was 2/3 from 3 last game, but his overall percentage from 3 is I believe 24%. There is definately room for improvement and you are correct with him needing to improve that.

Anyone agree with me that Carthage is so tough to game plan for because of their guards being able to shoot from all over, and the improved play of Neb down low?

[RedMan1]

I think the obvious reasons for the great outside shooting is the penetration and dishing the ball out to Fendley or Bowens by Steve, and also great ball movement/movement by players. It also helps when all 3 are feeling it from the field.

Also, Carthage is playing with a confidence that I haven't seen in a while and that's another reason they are hot right now.

I'd like to see how the Redmen would react to a bad night from the arc....

[cardinalfanrochelle]

Redmenfan,
                  NC has a nice balance of big men not one, their guard play in a motion" D" is nice and prevents high pct. 3 point shots, by swinging the big man through high post cutting down on lane challanges and cutting off soft weak side scoring opportunity in the paint.

[iwumichigander]

Re: President's Tournament Decision - Thank-you Presidents!  I thought the whole concept of the so-called play-in (and not call it a tournament to boot) was a dumb idea.  In theory, all a team would have to do is win 3 games - the play-in plus the tournament games to get the AQ.  Forget the non-exemption and dropping a regular conference season game, the CCIW would not have looked very strong in the above scenario. 

[ChicagoHopeNut]

Re: President's Tournament Decision - Thank-you Presidents!  I thought the whole concept of the so-called play-in (and not call it a tournament to boot) was a dumb idea.  In theory, all a team would have to do is win 3 games - the play-in plus the tournament games to get the AQ.  Forget the non-exemption and dropping a regular conference season game, the CCIW would not have looked very strong in the above scenario. 

I've been reading up on this CCIW proposal and it seems to make sense to reject the play-in idea if it would require teams to give up a regular season game. I really don't understand why the league wouldn't want an 8-team tourney. If it is the case the women's teams don't want one I don't understand why the men and women's tourneys can't be different formats.

(Any insight as to why the women don't want an 8 team tourney?)

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'm agnostic on the 4 vs. 8 team tourney, but the '8-team pretending to be a 4-team thru play-ins' is DUMB!

As far as the women vs. the men, my guesses (I have no insider knowledge) are the conference is (rightly or wrongly) either respecting (or in fear of) Title IX for having them different, and that the men have enough of a national rep that a 'longshot' winner will probably not delete pool C teams, while the women are afraid that the whole regular season could be for naught (except conference tourney seeding, of course).  Conferences likely to have only one rep have an interest in sending their best (or at least very good); conferences likely to have more than one can afford a 'cinderella'.  Despite Augie's calamity last season , the CCIW men are usually in the latter, the women so far are usually in the former.

[Pat Coleman]

I'm agnostic on the 4 vs. 8 team tourney, but the '8-team pretending to be a 4-team thru play-ins' is DUMB!

You think it's dumb there, imagine if it was a 64-team play-in for a 32-team NCAA Tournament...

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'm agnostic on the 4 vs. 8 team tourney, but the '8-team pretending to be a 4-team thru play-ins' is DUMB!

You think it's dumb there, imagine if it was a 64-team play-in for a 32-team NCAA Tournament...

Was that just a wisecrack, or does some division/sport actually do that??!!

[Pat Coleman]

Sadly:

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa95.htm
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa96.htm
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa97.htm

And the equivalent women's basketball tournaments.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sadly:

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa95.htm
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa96.htm
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa97.htm

And the equivalent women's basketball tournaments.

I take it that 1st round games counted against games allowed?  But how could they enforce that, or was the whole season just 24 games for everyone?

There's nothing on what you linked to to say they were 'play-ins' rather than tournament games.  And (1997 National Champ) Dennie Bridges (A Dunk Only Counts Two Points) doesn't distinguish the opening game as any different than any other tourney game: "The opening game was with Maryville College, an automatic qualifier as champions of the St. Louis Conference."  (Even if he rather ungraciously continues: "Drawing Maryville was almost like a bye..." - I guess winning by 39 can have that effect on a coach!)

Was the 64-game tourney contingent on everyone dropping one game?

[Pat Coleman]

There's nothing on what you linked to to say they were 'play-ins' rather than tournament games. 

You can take my word for it, Chuck.

I don't believe they counted against the maximum. In those years, however, a conference tournament did count one game against the max -- if you had a conference tournament you could only play 24 regular-season games.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat, I long ago learned to take your word for things!

I just couldn't figure out in what sense they were 'play-ins' rather than 'first round games'.

Since the CCIW didn't have a tourney at the time, I guess conference tourneys were 'play-ins' in the sense of losing a regular-season game?  But first-round games were genuinely 'post-season' if you didn't?

[Pat Coleman]

They were play-ins in the sense that you had to pay your own way, NAIA-style, for the first round. They were considered part of the NCAA Tournament by everyone but the NCAA beancounters and we are not treating them any differently.

Remember the context -- immediately before this we had had 40-team tournaments and it was nearly impossible to get in. After this stretch we had 48-team tournaments.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Aha!  Gotcha.

I have this tendency to think of it as sport, and forget the bean-counters!

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, the Massey Index has the CCIW behind the UAA, NESCAC, and ODAC...

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&sub=III&mid=1#conf

The CCIW has typcially been #1 or #2.

I agree the bottom of the league is better than it has been recently and there is certainly more parity, but I still think the CCIW, like the WIAC, is down.  There isn't a single team this year as good as the worst of the top four in 2005-06 (whoever that was), between IWU's Final Four team, CCIW champ Augustana, conference tournament champ North Central, and Elmhurst.  For me, strength at the top is significant factor in determining if the league is "up" or "down"...in addition to the strength at the bottom and parity.

You and I are both well aware that the Massey Index has holes in it, Bob, especially when it comes to comparing conferences. I don't doubt for a minute that the WIAC has it over the CCIW this season, because the cheeseheads have had the better of us in four of the five contests between the two circuits, and the UAA has some compelling arguments in its favor as well. But that in and of itself doesn't diminish the CCIW any, and the evidence that the ODAC is better top-to-bottom is sketchy at best.

Again, you focus too much upon the top of the CCIW. It's not a two-team league, nor is it a three-team league or a four-team league ... it's an eight-team league. And, top to bottom, the CCIW stands up very well this season in comparison to the league's historical record, as I laid out last night. Eighty-eight games' worth of non-conference competition is a more than satisfactory database with which to establish that fact.