MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[WUPHF]

You guys are up early thinking about the game.  Yeah, me too.

I agree that Wheaton defended well.  I disagree that McKendree defended well.  They played better defense and capitalized on a cold shooting WUSTL team in the first ten minutes of the second half, but that is a different story.  Final score on that game, 82-67.

The Bears also defended well, holding a very talented offensive team below the season average.

There was a lot of discussion about what it means to be athletic and in my opinion Wheaton is one of the most athletic teams I have seen.  Lots of physical strength and the ability to run for 40 minutes.  That is my definition.  And, that is Wheaton.

If they play again in the bracket of death or otherwise, there is no way I am missing it.

[CCIWchamps]

Wheaton's defense was just incredible - I thought McKendree took Wash U out of their offense in the 2nd half last week - Wheaton did it virtually the whole game - Wallis was pressured everywhere, Thompson and Knepper had few ouside looks - but if you pressure the perimeter, there's no one to help inside, which is how Gay got all the easy hoops....

This has gotta be Wheaton's strength this year, playing strong defense.  So far they've shown they can lock people up at times.  It was encouraging to see them put up a game like this vs. Wash U, especially when many might have expected a far different outcome.  But to repeat the effort that they put up last Spring is great. 

[John Gleich]

You guys are up early thinking about the game.  Yeah, me too.

I agree that Wheaton defended well.  I disagree that McKendree defended well.  They played better defense and capitalized on a cold shooting WUSTL team in the first ten minutes of the second half, but that is a different story.  Final score on that game, 82-67.

The Bears also defended well, holding a very talented offensive team below the season average.

There was a lot of discussion about what it means to be athletic and in my opinion Wheaton is one of the most athletic teams I have seen.  Lots of physical strength and the ability to run for 40 minutes.  That is my definition.  And, that is Wheaton.

If they play again in the bracket of death or otherwise, there is no way I am missing it.

The question is, did they capitalize on cold shooting, or did they CAUSE cold shooting?

[hopefan]

Point - there is no question the defense caused the cold shooting - Thompson, who is a terrific shooter when he catches and shoots, was forced to shoot off the move several times - on one set, Wash U had the ball for the whole shot clock and Thompson had to put up a +30 footer at the buzzer.  AND Wheaton created numerous turnovers pressuring the wings, and forcing Wallis out near half court when he needed to get the ball back after initial passes.....   you can tell, I was VERY impressed by Wheaton's D.

[Mugsy]

Point - there is no question the defense caused the cold shooting - Thompson, who is a terrific shooter when he catches and shoots, was forced to shoot off the move several times - on one set, Wash U had the ball for the whole shot clock and Thompson had to put up a +30 footer at the buzzer.  AND Wheaton created numerous turnovers pressuring the wings, and forcing Wallis out near half court when he needed to get the ball back after initial passes.....   you can tell, I was VERY impressed by Wheaton's D.

Too bad the intensity Wheaton displayed against WashU failed to show up for the Hope game.  That could have been a very entertaining game instead of a blow out.

[WUPHF]

The question is, did they capitalize on cold shooting, or did they CAUSE cold shooting?

The answer is not necessarily either or, but I would not have said that McKendree capitalized on cold shooting if they were largely responsible for the cold shooting and I would suggest to you that they were not.  McKendree dropped both games last weekend.  I watched McKendree play three games this year and, in my opinion, they are good, but not great.

Hopefan: the reference was in regards to McKendree, not Wheaton.  No one suggested that Wheaton did not play very tight defense.  Wheaton was, I believe, largely responsible for the cold shooting, but not entirely responsible as you seem to suggest.  Washington University did have several open looks from beyond the arc, but certainly less than usual.

[CCIWFAN3]

Offense is fun.
Defense wins games.
Rebounding wins championships.

WashU did win the rebounding battle...by a slim margin though.

[The Roop]

I agree that there is not much to take from this game.  However, from watching, I think there were some points for Gonzaga in intimidation factor.  I was frustrated during the first half, mostly, when AC would just pass it around the perimiter and not even look for a shot.  That, in and of itself, took away from AC showing the talent that it does have.

Smile and take the check, put it towards the trip to Europe next year. The margin was disappointing but it's still an out of region game so it doesn't count either way.

[CCIWFAN3]

Sager, TItanQ, AndOne, Mr. Ypsi, Point S. hopefan or anyone...please explain to me why DIII post season seedings are not soley based on your ranking. Is it only because of location and travel $?  I've seen many times two top 20 teams play each other in the 2nd round. It's almost the same as when IHSA places the sectional complexes for high school teams.  It's not according to the teams rank but rather the location.  Do you ever see this changing?

[Pat Coleman]

Not so long as the current leadership from the NCAA is in charge of the tournament. This committee has displayed a distinct lack of creativity.

[CCIWFAN3]

Pat,  Is money the issue?

[Titan Q]

Sager, TItanQ, AndOne, Mr. Ypsi, Point S. hopefan or anyone...please explain to me why DIII post season seedings are not soley based on your ranking. Is it only because of location and travel $?  I've seen many times two top 20 teams play each other in the 2nd round. It's almost the same as when IHSA places the sectional complexes for high school teams.  It's not according to the teams rank but rather the location.  Do you ever see this changing?

From a really high-level standpoint, it comes down to three things - 1) Money, 2) Division III Philosophy, and 3) Lack of creativity in making the brackets (as Pat noted).

#1 is pretty simple - Division III is not allocated a lot of money to run its tournaments (relative to Division I).

As far as #2, a good starting point is the Championship Handbook (which every D3 fan should take some time to read through)...

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf

"The Division III championships philosophy is to field the most competitive teams possible while minimizing missed class time; to emphasize regional competition in regular-season scheduling; and 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."
(page 7)


#3 is very frustrating...not sure what the answer is there.  Even with current budget limitiations and in staying true to the regional philosophy, there are ways to avoid the "bracket of death" (name given to the 2009 Midwest/West pairings which, among other crazy matchups, had #1 Wash U vs #2 Wheaton in Round 3).



So, the regionality of Division III (and the fact that the West, Midwest, and Great Lakes regions are typically much deeper than regions like the Northeast, East, Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic), the budget constraints, and the lack of creativity leads to problems like this...

Not even factoring in the Sectionals (Rounds 3 & 4), it's telling to just look at Round 2 matchups to see how different the roads are in different parts of the country...

CCIW 2nd Rounds this decade
2008-09:  Wheaton vs #5 UW-Platteville
2007-08:  Augustana vs #11 Wash U (eventual national champ)
2006-07:  n/a
2005-06:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #15 UW-Whitewater
2005-06:  Augustana vs #19 UW-Stout
2004-05:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Hanover
2003-04:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Hanover
2002-03:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Wash U
2001-02:  Carthage vs Hope
2000-01:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Wartburg
2000-01:  Carthage vs #2 Wooster
2000-01:  Elmhurst vs #8 Wash U
1999-00:  Carthage vs #15 UW-Eau Claire         


NESCAC 2nd Rounds this decade
2008-09:  Middlebury vs Bridgewater State
2007-08:  Amherst vs John Jay
2006-07:  Amherst vs Widener
2005-06:  Amherst vs Hamilton
2005-06:  Tufts vs Cortland State
2004-05:  Amherst vs Springfield
2003-04:  Williams vs Salem State
2003-04:  Amherst vs Plymouth State
2003-04:  Trinity vs Brockport State
2002-03:  Williams vs Salem State
2002-03:  Amherst vs Southern Vermont
2001-02:  Amherst vs Western Connecticut
2001-02:  Williams vs Cazenovia
2001-02:  Trinity vs #8 Brockport State
2000-01:  Amherst vs Clark
1999-00: Williams vs Springfield
1999-00: Amherst vs #21 Salem State


(Rankings noted are those from the D3hoops.com Top 25 at the time the game was played.)

[cardinalpride]

Money and Travel are probably two most important factors when creating the brackets!  Money to the NCAA and Travel to family, friends, and student bodies of the programs invited!  Whom, if I may add, purchase a large portion of tickets to the games.  It's not the NCAA's fault that some of the best small college basketball is played in the northern midwest part of the country.

[WUPHF]

I had heard that at least some horse trading goes on between the committees while arranging the brackets for both the Men and Women.  And, example could be the fact that the Washington University Women hosted the first and second rounds last year while the higher seeded Men had to play ever game on the road.

That theory is probably horse poop but but crazier things do happen (e.g. the way Division I soccer home games are assigned).

[Gregory Sager]

Panner thought Wheaton was down by 2 and not tied.

That makes more sense.  There is no way, in a tied game, you intentionally put the other team at the FT line with 25 seconds to play...unless Shaq, or someone like that, is the shooter.

Just for the record, I feel the same way. My point was that, given Gay's inexperience in this sort of situation and his lack of a proven ability to make FTs, plus the fact that it was a one-on-one bonus situation and not a double bonus, Mike Schauer or one of his assistants probably indicated at one of the last timeouts that Gay was the man to foul if it came down to that -- and Panner may have simply reacted to those prior instructions. It's common practice for a coaching staff to indicate which opposing player to situationally foul in endgame timeouts.

Yeah, Panner may just have made a mistake and misread the scoreboard, but he's a smart player who has as much game experience as anyone in the CCIW, so I felt that someone should play the devil's advocate on his behalf.