MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[sac]

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).

Even years men have hosting priority for round 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.  2009 was odd year.

[WUPHF]

Even years men have hosting priority for round 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.  2009 was odd year.

That makes a lot more sense.  Thanks.

[Gregory Sager]

I took a look at the CCIW stats this afternoon -- mostly to see just how badly last night damaged Augie's numbers on the season -- and I was astonished at how poorly the league as a whole is shooting treys this year. Here's the team numbers to date:

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGES

#	Team	G	FG	FGA	Pct
1.	Wheaton	7	34	93	.366
2.	North Central	6	52	144	.361
3.	North Park	7	46	129	.357
4.	Carthage	8	56	159	.352
5.	Elmhurst	6	30	88	.341
6.	Illinois Wesleyan	7	43	138	.312
7.	Augustana	6	25	89	.281
8.	Millikin	5	8	38	.211

The league as a whole is 294-878 (.335) from behind the arc. Contrast that with last year's season totals: 1207-3280 (.368), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.403) and Millikin (.327). Or the season before: 1387-3744 (.370), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.424) and Illinois Wesleyan (.344). What's perplexing is that the numbers that CCIW teams post in November and December tend to be higher as a whole than the numbers that they post in January, February, and March, when the competition is better on average.

The league's three-point shooting is radically down this year, and Augie's 1-21 last night is not the reason why.

[Mr. Ypsi]

While Augie's 1-21 is not the explanation, it sure didn't help!  Remove that one game, and Augie jumps to .353!  Likewise, remove IWU's godawful 4-24 'performance' against Chicago and they would be 30 points higher (.342).

This early in the season, just one atrocious game can make a very big difference.

I didn't go through team-by-team - anyone else pulled down by one horrendous outing?

[cardinalpride]

I took a look at the CCIW stats this afternoon -- mostly to see just how badly last night damaged Augie's numbers on the season -- and I was astonished at how poorly the league as a whole is shooting treys this year. Here's the team numbers to date:

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGES

#	Team	G	FG	FGA	Pct
1.	Wheaton	7	34	93	.366
2.	North Central	6	52	144	.361
3.	North Park	7	46	129	.357
4.	Carthage	8	56	159	.352
5.	Elmhurst	6	30	88	.341
6.	Illinois Wesleyan	7	43	138	.312
7.	Augustana	6	25	89	.281
8.	Millikin	5	8	38	.211

The league as a whole is 294-878 (.335) from behind the arc. Contrast that with last year's season totals: 1207-3280 (.368), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.403) and Millikin (.327). Or the season before: 1387-3744 (.370), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.424) and Illinois Wesleyan (.344). What's perplexing is that the numbers that CCIW teams post in November and December tend to be higher as a whole than the numbers that they post in January, February, and March, when the competition is better on average.

The league's three-point shooting is radically down this year, and Augie's 1-21 last night is not the reason why.

GS,
So much of quality 3pt shooting is dictated by establishing an inside presence that's good enough to demand help combined with having players on the perimeter that will take and knock down open 3ptrs.  Elmhurst, the previous two years, is proof of that.  If we take a closer look at this year's CCIW teams, how many do we have that are built with that combination?  Short answer....Not many!

[Gregory Sager]

While Augie's 1-21 is not the explanation, it sure didn't help!  Remove that one game, and Augie jumps to .353!  Likewise, remove IWU's godawful 4-24 'performance' against Chicago and they would be 30 points higher (.342).

This early in the season, just one atrocious game can make a very big difference.

I didn't go through team-by-team - anyone else pulled down by one horrendous outing?

We're 54 games into the season, Chuck, which means that while one outlier game can dramatically raise or lower a single team's statistics, it's pretty hard to do that to the league as a whole at this point. Take away Augie's 1-21 performance from the league's trey stats, and the CCIW goes from an awful .335 to an awful .341. Take away IWU's 4-24 performance against Chicago on top of that, and the league is still shooting an awful .347 from behind the arc.

Plus, you can maneuver this statistical exercise in the opposite direction by taking away the good performances, which would make the CCIW's totals even worse -- performances such as Carthage's 8-16 against Transylvania; North Park's 6-12 against Spaulding; Wheaton's 11-21 against Calvin; and Elmhurst's 8-16 against Fontbonne.

The fact of the matter is that there's been a bonanza of really dreadful CCIW performances from downtown this year, some of them even coming in winning efforts; e.g., Carthage's 2-19 showing against Wisconsin Lutheran and Elmhurst's 1-12 tally against Kalamazoo. Millikin's a combined 4-15 in its two wins. Cherry-picking this game or that to change the totals really doesn't alter the grim overall picture.

GS,
So much of quality 3pt shooting is dictated by establishing an inside presence that's good enough to demand help combined with having players on the perimeter that will take and knock down open 3ptrs.  Elmhurst, the previous two years, is proof of that.  If we take a closer look at this year's CCIW teams, how many do we have that are built with that combination?  Short answer....Not many!

Yep. That's not the whole story, but that's a big part of it.

[AndOne]

I took a look at the CCIW stats this afternoon -- mostly to see just how badly last night damaged Augie's numbers on the season -- and I was astonished at how poorly the league as a whole is shooting treys this year. Here's the team numbers to date:

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGES

#	Team	G	FG	FGA	Pct
1.	Wheaton	7	34	93	.366
2.	North Central	6	52	144	.361
3.	North Park	7	46	129	.357
4.	Carthage	8	56	159	.352
5.	Elmhurst	6	30	88	.341
6.	Illinois Wesleyan	7	43	138	.312
7.	Augustana	6	25	89	.281
8.	Millikin	5	8	38	.211

The league as a whole is 294-878 (.335) from behind the arc. Contrast that with last year's season totals: 1207-3280 (.368), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.403) and Millikin (.327). Or the season before: 1387-3744 (.370), with a percentage spread between Elmhurst (.424) and Illinois Wesleyan (.344). What's perplexing is that the numbers that CCIW teams post in November and December tend to be higher as a whole than the numbers that they post in January, February, and March, when the competition is better on average.

The league's three-point shooting is radically down this year, and Augie's 1-21 last night is not the reason why.

As we all know, the CCIW lost a lot of good bigs after last year. As a result, the overall league is, or at least seemingly should be, tilted more toward being guard dominated (read increased perimeter shooting) this year. The corresponding tendency would probably be that the league is collectively throwing up more bombs from beyond the arc. While a lesser percentage than you might think seem to be finding the target, perhaps some teams, notably Carthage, North Central, Wesleyan, & North Park are operating under the theory that if they throw up enough threes, perhaps they'll be able to drain enough of them to make a difference in the game. Possible?

[Mr. Ypsi]

While Augie's 1-21 is not the explanation, it sure didn't help!  Remove that one game, and Augie jumps to .353!  Likewise, remove IWU's godawful 4-24 'performance' against Chicago and they would be 30 points higher (.342).

This early in the season, just one atrocious game can make a very big difference.

I didn't go through team-by-team - anyone else pulled down by one horrendous outing?

We're 54 games into the season, Chuck, which means that while one outlier game can dramatically raise or lower a single team's statistics, it's pretty hard to do that to the league as a whole at this point. Take away Augie's 1-21 performance from the league's trey stats, and the CCIW goes from an awful .335 to an awful .341. Take away IWU's 4-24 performance against Chicago on top of that, and the league is still shooting an awful .347 from behind the arc.

Plus, you can maneuver this statistical exercise in the opposite direction by taking away the good performances, which would make the CCIW's totals even worse -- performances such as Carthage's 8-16 against Transylvania; North Park's 6-12 against Spaulding; Wheaton's 11-21 against Calvin; and Elmhurst's 8-16 against Fontbonne.

The fact of the matter is that there's been a bonanza of really dreadful CCIW performances from downtown this year, some of them even coming in winning efforts; e.g., Carthage's 2-19 showing against Wisconsin Lutheran and Elmhurst's 1-12 tally against Kalamazoo. Millikin's a combined 4-15 in its two wins. Cherry-picking this game or that to change the totals really doesn't alter the grim overall picture.

I obviously wasn't clear.  I wasn't trying to quibble with your main point about the conference; just clarifying if anyone read too much into team-by-team results.

If Augie had not played Gonzaga, they would be 4th, not 7th!

I agree that for the conference as a whole it is far enough into the season to wonder about the trend.

[markerickson]

Keep in mind those percentages will increase once conference foes compete against North Park.

[John Gleich]

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

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

Absolutely... but they won the rebounding battle in the second half by more than a slim margin.  Wheaton was up either 2 or 4 at the half and Wash U ended up on top by 5.  That was a key turning point in the game as well, and largely from Gay, as Kelly was on the pine with foul trouble.

[John Gleich]

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?

In some respects, though, the post season seedings ARE based on your ranking... but just in the way that the NCAA has defined the ranking.  It's an objective as opposed to subjective ranking.  Now, the regionality certainly comes into play... I don't have the stats in terms of the ranking of the NCAA's criteria and the selection... that would be an interesting case study, and perhaps it has been done, but I can't remember it.

I'm not sure where the top teams were in terms of the NCAA criteria (who were in the same region last year, teams like St. Thomas, Wheaton, Wash U, UW Stevens Point, UW Platteville, UW Whitewater, etc), but due to their proximity, they weren't separated.  In theory, it might have been possible to separate the region at least in two... I don't have those stats either, unfortunately, but there have been years where teams from local conferences have been "shipped out" to the Great Lakes or the South.  But this is on an individual basis... The winner of a quad is sent away, like I believe IWU was when they went out to Hampden Sydney or Randolph Macon (I don't remember which, ask Q). 

That would, of course, take some creativity, that, interestingly, we've had on the women's side, but not on the men's.  I don't know how much it has to do with it, but Shirley Egner from UW Stevens Point was the head of the women's committee the last few years and, as well, has had teams in the NCAA tournament, so she knows what having even competition is all about.

Just a few scattered thoughts.

[Mr. Ypsi]

CCIWFAN3,

If by 'rankings' you mean the d3hoops.com poll, I assume you are aware that that has ZERO (officially, at least) impact on the selection committee.  The only 'rankings' that matter are the NCAA regional rankings, based on the 'selection criteria'.

Nonetheless, the 'Bracket of Death' could have been easily alleviated (and probably would have been by the women's selection committee).  I forget the specific details (and don't feel like looking them up as it no longer matters ), but suggestions were made on the boards that could have easily moved 2-4 of the top teams elsewhere, while still following the criteria (and avoiding airplane flights).  The Midwest/West quadrant would have still been the strongest, but it would not have been the fiasco that actually occurred.  Why the men's selection committee can't do that is beyond me.

[John Gleich]

CCIWFAN3,

If by 'rankings' you mean the d3hoops.com poll, I assume you are aware that that has ZERO (officially, at least) impact on the selection committee.  The only 'rankings' that matter are the NCAA regional rankings, based on the 'selection criteria'.

Nonetheless, the 'Bracket of Death' could have been easily alleviated (and probably would have been by the women's selection committee).  I forget the specific details (and don't feel like looking them up as it no longer matters ), but suggestions were made on the boards that could have easily moved 2-4 of the top teams elsewhere, while still following the criteria (and avoiding airplane flights).  The Midwest/West quadrant would have still been the strongest, but it would not have been the fiasco that actually occurred.  Why the men's selection committee can't do that is beyond me.

And the thing is, it wouldn't create inequities elsewhere.  It isn't like you're just moving around teams from one balanced quadrant into another and creating an imbalance...  It's actually doing the opposite, and this HAS been done to the point that teams from the same conference have met in the Final Four (Williams and Amherst in 03-04).  And these schools are 60 miles apart.  To be true, there are a lot of schools relatively close, so it was easier... but it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to create more equal brackets.

[sac]

CCIWFAN3,

If by 'rankings' you mean the d3hoops.com poll, I assume you are aware that that has ZERO (officially, at least) impact on the selection committee.  The only 'rankings' that matter are the NCAA regional rankings, based on the 'selection criteria'.

Nonetheless, the 'Bracket of Death' could have been easily alleviated (and probably would have been by the women's selection committee).  I forget the specific details (and don't feel like looking them up as it no longer matters ), but suggestions were made on the boards that could have easily moved 2-4 of the top teams elsewhere, while still following the criteria (and avoiding airplane flights).  The Midwest/West quadrant would have still been the strongest, but it would not have been the fiasco that actually occurred.  Why the men's selection committee can't do that is beyond me.

The women's sectional at Thomas More last season included #2 Hope, #3 George Fox, #5 Oglethorpe and #7 Thomas More.

The women's sectional at IWU included #1 Illinois Wesleyan, #4 Stevens Point and #6 Washington

The other two sectionals included #8, #12, #20 and unranked.......and #11, #14, #18, #25

6 of the 8 matchups involving ranked teams playing each other in rounds 1 and 2 occurred in the IWU and Thomas More brackets.

While I agree in general the women do a better job of moving teams around (ie the Thomas More sectional featured teams from 3 different regions) they still don't always reach the kind of equity in pairings we'd all like to see.

[Mr. Ypsi]

CCIWFAN3,

If by 'rankings' you mean the d3hoops.com poll, I assume you are aware that that has ZERO (officially, at least) impact on the selection committee.  The only 'rankings' that matter are the NCAA regional rankings, based on the 'selection criteria'.

Nonetheless, the 'Bracket of Death' could have been easily alleviated (and probably would have been by the women's selection committee).  I forget the specific details (and don't feel like looking them up as it no longer matters ), but suggestions were made on the boards that could have easily moved 2-4 of the top teams elsewhere, while still following the criteria (and avoiding airplane flights).  The Midwest/West quadrant would have still been the strongest, but it would not have been the fiasco that actually occurred.  Why the men's selection committee can't do that is beyond me.

The women's sectional at Thomas More last season included #2 Hope, #3 George Fox, #5 Oglethorpe and #7 Thomas More.

The women's sectional at IWU included #1 Illinois Wesleyan, #4 Stevens Point and #6 Washington

The other two sectionals included #8, #12, #20 and unranked.......and #11, #14, #18, #25

6 of the 8 matchups involving ranked teams playing each other in rounds 1 and 2 occurred in the IWU and Thomas More brackets.

While I agree in general the women do a better job of moving teams around (ie the Thomas More sectional featured teams from 3 different regions) they still don't always reach the kind of equity in pairings we'd all like to see.

Agreed, but they still did a helluva lot better than the men, where #1 thru #7 were ALL in the same sectional!

I've been disappointed that the last two years in Holland we never got a Hope/IWU showdown - maybe this year in Bloomington?!