MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[augiefan]

I am sure the supporters of the tourney are reasonably confident that the regular season champ will get a bid based on the historically high quality of play in the CCIW, Thus, in those years that they do not win the regular season title, they figure there is a good shot two teams will go if one of the also rans wins the tourney, which is quite probable this year.

It's intersting that Augie, which has won the conference three years in a row, is a supporter of the tourney. I imagine Coach G knows that all good things come to an end.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I am sure the supporters of the tourney are reasonably confident that the regular season champ will get a bid based on the historically high quality of play in the CCIW, Thus, in those years that they do not win the regular season title, they figure there is a good shot two teams will go if one of the also rans wins the tourney, which is quite probable this year.

It's intersting that Augie, which has won the conference three years in a row, is a supporter of the tourney. I imagine Coach G knows that all good things come to an end.

What I find even more telling, however, is that all three other participants this year (2 of which stand essentially 0 chance of being in the tourney without the conference tourney) oppose the conference tourney.

[iwumichigander]

Final IWU 81 Wheaton 78
What a ball game and 48 fouls called by the officials in the this game! 

Kent Raymond led the Thunder with 34 points (led all scorers in game) followed by Weile with 14 and the Thunder out rebounded IWU (39-27).  A wonderful performance by Kent Raymond.

IWU's Rosenkranz turned it on in the 2nd half finishing with 20 pts (18 2nd half) on 8 - 13 FG to lead IWU.  Sean Johnson had 16 points and Chamernik 12 pts.  It was pretty much all Titan freshmen in this contest as Darius Gant logged just 14 minutes finishing with 6 points all on made free throws (6-7 FTM); Gant, and Sexauer fouled out for IWU.  With trouble making them from the charity stripe all season, the Titans closed out the game making 23 of 32 FT (71.9%) - excellent job!

IWU made a very efficient 26 of 47 FG (55.3%) while Wheaton was just 26 - 64 FG (40.6%).  Wesleyan ahead by 3 at the half, never gave up the lead in the 2nd half.  Very nice work Titans!!

[TitansIWU]

Big, Big W for the Titans!

I can only begin to imagine what this team wil be like next year and beyond.

One more even bigger win would be nice!

[Gregory Sager]

If teams could opt-out of the tournaments that decide AQ's with visions of garnering Pool C's, I believe you'd start to hear alot of griping from those "on the bubble" C teams who put their records on the line in the conference tournaments.

A coach from a bubble team could gripe away to his heart's content about an opt-out CCIW champ garnering a Pool C berth, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. It would simply be a matter of that CCIW champion's coach gaming the system -- just as we gripe about the fact that the NESCAC as a whole games the system by opting to only play a single round-robin.

And, I think a conference, and its member institutions, would get a call from the NCAA and/or a fast NCAA Tournament Guidelines rules change.  An opt-out simply violates the "Division III Philosophy - The Division III championships philosophy is to field the most competitive teams ... to provide representation in NCAA championship competition by allocating berths to eligible conferences, independent institutions and a limited number of at-large teams, realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams. (Source: NCAA Championship Handbook - bold added)

I don't see anything at all in the mission statement that would be violated by the opt-out clause. The CCIW champion would be a potential at-large team if it elected to opt out of the conference tourney. The CCIW tourney winner would get the league's Pool A berth. The NCAA isn't the slightest bit concerned with how a league selects its Pool A team -- that is considered to be an internal matter for each league to decide. If the NCAA had any fixed ideas about how leagues should select their autobid representatives, it would've legislated them a long time ago.

And if the CCIW's adoption of an opt-out clause would lead to a rules change, then so what? You just go back to the way things were originally.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

If there was NO wiggle room, the committee would be replaced by a computer.  There is still the issue of which criterion trumps which other criterion.  As long a humans are still on the selection committee, there WILL be subjectivity (and I, for one, am glad of that).

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

If there was NO wiggle room, the committee would be replaced by a computer.  There is still the issue of which criterion trumps which other criterion.  As long a humans are still on the selection committee, there WILL be subjectivity (and I, for one, am glad of that).

If the committee was to emphasize one criterion in the Pool C selection process over another just to bust the chops of an opt-out CCIW champ, then it would have to emphasize that criterion across the board where other teams are concerned. If not, then the members of the committee would be going beyond subjectivity and into the realm of dishonorable conduct (i.e., blackballing).

My point is that, as long as the committee continues to administer the criteria in the way that it has traditionally done so, there isn't really any license for them to work a grudge against the CCIW.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

If there was NO wiggle room, the committee would be replaced by a computer.  There is still the issue of which criterion trumps which other criterion.  As long a humans are still on the selection committee, there WILL be subjectivity (and I, for one, am glad of that).

If the committee was to emphasize one criterion in the Pool C selection process over another just to bust the chops of an opt-out CCIW champ, then it would have to emphasize that criterion across the board where other teams are concerned. If not, then the members of the committee would be going beyond subjectivity and into the realm of dishonorable conduct (i.e., blackballing).

My point is that, as long as the committee continues to administer the criteria in the way that it has traditionally done so, there isn't really any license for them to work a grudge against the CCIW.

The optimist in me says OK.  The realist in me says "We never see the final regional rankings, we have no inside knowledge of their deliberations; who knows what criteria they ACTUALLY apply".  I'm not even saying it would necessarily be a conscious attempt to do in the 'opt out' team, but once it gets to close calls (and the 13th thru 20th pool Cs are nearly always close calls), who knows what may get considered?  Record in late season?  Injuries?  Past history?  None of these are official criteria, but it is a HUMAN committee, not a computer decision.  (And, personally, I'm not even opposed to these factors if it really is a toss-up on both primary and secondary criteria.)

[iwumichigander]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

If there was NO wiggle room, the committee would be replaced by a computer.  There is still the issue of which criterion trumps which other criterion.  As long a humans are still on the selection committee, there WILL be subjectivity (and I, for one, am glad of that).

If the committee was to emphasize one criterion in the Pool C selection process over another just to bust the chops of an opt-out CCIW champ, then it would have to emphasize that criterion across the board where other teams are concerned. If not, then the members of the committee would be going beyond subjectivity and into the realm of dishonorable conduct (i.e., blackballing).

My point is that, as long as the committee continues to administer the criteria in the way that it has traditionally done so, there isn't really any license for them to work a grudge against the CCIW.

Like committees in the past have not gone off in the twlight zone before? Right!  The only thing the committee has done consistantly in the past is to administer the criteria inconsistently!  Otherwise, my guess would be a certain CCIW coach would still be on the committee; and, all lot of posters would not having been complaining in recent years about a certain past chair of the Midwest Region.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I still think there is enough wiggle room in applying the criteria that an 'opt out' champ better be awfully confident of being in the top (say) 12 (of 17), or they could face wrath.

Where? Where is the wiggle room? The whole idea behind creating the primary criteria was to eliminate the subjective elements from the selection process.

If there was NO wiggle room, the committee would be replaced by a computer.  There is still the issue of which criterion trumps which other criterion.  As long a humans are still on the selection committee, there WILL be subjectivity (and I, for one, am glad of that).

If the committee was to emphasize one criterion in the Pool C selection process over another just to bust the chops of an opt-out CCIW champ, then it would have to emphasize that criterion across the board where other teams are concerned. If not, then the members of the committee would be going beyond subjectivity and into the realm of dishonorable conduct (i.e., blackballing).

My point is that, as long as the committee continues to administer the criteria in the way that it has traditionally done so, there isn't really any license for them to work a grudge against the CCIW.

Like committees in the past have not gone off in the twlight zone before? Right!  The only thing the committee has done consistantly in the past is to administer the criteria inconsistently!

We don't know that. We have no way of knowing that -- especially since the committee does not release its final regional rankings.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, which was one of MY main points, once the AC/EC game is over and you get a chance to respond!

[Gregory Sager]

Augustana beats Elmhurst, 69-68, in overtime. Huge game for Chandlor Collins, and Alex Washington came up big as well late.

[Gregory Sager]

Collins, 16 pts, 12 rebs, 4 blks
Washington, 14 pts
Swetalla, 14 pts
Wessels, 12 pts

Ruch 25 pts, 11 rebs
Ryder 11 pts

Augie outshot Elmhurst from the field, 44% to 42%.