MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[petemcb]

Greg, I hope your NPU team can prove us all wrong and somehow "outrun Grandma."  And, perhaps a few others.  Then again, Millikin isn't going to like being Grandma either.

At this point, Millikin has no choice in the matter. If the support hose fits ...

+k

[petemcb]

With more "facts" than I'm willing to put on the table at this point, and for the sake of another early entry in the pre-season predictions, I'm going to say:

Augie
NCC
Wheaton (with a possible move to second)
NPU
IWU
Carthage (tied with IWU for 5th.....or 6th.....depending on who's reading this)
Elmhurst
Millikin

[Gregory Sager]

Carthage (tied with IWU for 5th.....or 6th.....depending on who's reading this)

Second-best laugh of the day on d3boards.com, Pete, although KnightSlappy's wisecrack in the MIAA room about Wheaton cheerleaders is hard to top.

[AndOne]

CCIW Co-Champion North Central kicked off practice last evening

bopol---

"Carthage finished tied for third."                   

You need to get out from under the rock a little more often. If you will click on the link to the CCIW web site below, you will have "official" confirmation of Carthage's FIFTH place finish in the conference last year.   

http://cciw.org/index.aspx?path=mbball&tab=basketball(m)

It seems like you are being selective with your use of the CCIW tie-breakers.  On one hand, you're calling North Central the co-champ, but on the other you dispute that Carthage finished tied for 3rd.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either...

* NCC tied for 1st & Carthage tied for 3rd

OR

* NCC finished 2nd and Carthage finished 5th


I believe this is pretty clear.  We know that teams that finish tied for 1st (like Augie and NCC last year at 11-3) are both considered to have finished 1st, regardless of how the tie-breaker (used to determine the AQ) works out.  So it would stand to reason that as you move down the standings, the same would apply.  In last year's scenario where IWU, Wheaton, and Carthage all finished 9-5, I believe all three are considered to have finished tied for 3rd...regardless of how the tie-breaker (used for conference tournament purposes) worked out.

bopol is correct - Carthage finished tied for 3rd last year.

I agree with you in principle regarding ties, Bob, but your facts are wrong ... and they're wrong in a way that gives what Mark is saying some credence.

It seems like you are being selective with your use of the CCIW tie-breakers.  On one hand, you're calling North Central the co-champ, but on the other you dispute that Carthage finished tied for 3rd.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either...

* NCC tied for 1st & Carthage tied for 3rd

OR

* NCC finished 2nd and Carthage finished 5th

Your second statement is not correct. According to the tiebreakers, NCC finished 1st and Carthage finished 5th. That's why the CCIW tourney was held in the airplane hangar in Naperville rather than at the Carver Center in Rock Island.

I agree with you 100% that tiebreakers are merely a tool used to determine seeding (based upon what for the most part are pretty arbitrary criteria), and that ties remain intact regardless of how tiebreakers are used. Indeed, this is how the league itself regards ties. Thus, Augustana and North Central were co-champions last season (and the league recognized that fact, as anyone who looks at last year's standings on www.cciw.org can see), rather than North Central being the sole champion due to the tiebreaker ... and Carthage fans thus have every right to tout their Red Men as having finished third, not fifth. Nevertheless, it was NCC that owned the first-place tiebreaker last season, not Augie.

You are right - I forgot NCC was the #1 seed.  My main point is simply - as you agree with - Carthage finished "tied for 3rd" in 2010-11.

Thank you Greg.
I guess the problem here stems from the fact that my orientation as far as who finishes 1st through 4th in the conference each year is geared to the fact that the conference tournament pairs what are effectively the top 4 finishers in the conference standings. The FIFTH place team does not make the conference tourney. Record does not matter one iota when it comes to who makes the tournament. Its the top 4 teams in the conference as determined by the conference rules, including the rules used to break a tie if that situation comes into play. Carthage was the best team to not make the CCIW tourney. Accordingly, to me, they were effectively the FIFTH place team last season regardless of their record.
Conference play is orientated with the 1st goal of the member teams being to win the conference. The 2nd goal is to make the conference tournament---which only the top 4 teams do. Everyone knows this is how play within the conference goes. During the conference portion of the season the coaches and players focus 1st on winning the conference and 2nd, on making the tournament. If you don't make the tournament the best you can call yourself is the FIFTH place team.

*As far as giving anything I say credence, Bob seems to have developed an aversion to doing so. If I said "El Hombre Rotundo fell hard, and hit the floor like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup," Bob would probably say it was jello rather than vegetable soup!      

[Titan Q]

*As far as giving anything I say credence, Bob seems to have developed an aversion to doing so. If I said "El Hombre Rotundo fell hard, and hit the floor like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup," Bob would probably say it was jello rather than vegetable soup!      

I disagree! 

[AndOne]

*As far as giving anything I say credence, Bob seems to have developed an aversion to doing so. If I said "El Hombre Rotundo fell hard, and hit the floor like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup," Bob would probably say it was jello rather than vegetable soup!      

I disagree! 

I knew it!   

[bopol]

Conference play is orientated with the 1st goal of the member teams being to win the conference. The 2nd goal is to make the conference tournament---which only the top 4 teams do. Everyone knows this is how play within the conference goes. During the conference portion of the season the coaches and players focus 1st on winning the conference and 2nd, on making the tournament. If you don't make the tournament the best you can call yourself is the FIFTH place team.

*As far as giving anything I say credence, Bob seems to have developed an aversion to doing so. If I said "El Hombre Rotundo fell hard, and hit the floor like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup," Bob would probably say it was jello rather than vegetable soup!      

The three teams had 9 wins - so they tied.  It's really not that tough.  9 wins = 9 wins = 9 wins.  You don't even need to take off your socks to figure out that one.  Which would be good, because based on your continued immaturity, I can only assume that you are a result of inbreeding and probably have 12 toes.

[Gregory Sager]

Bob's still right, though. Carthage finished tied for third, and Carthage fans have every right to say that. Tiebreakers do not alter that fact, any more than they alter the fact that Augustana and North Central finished in a tie for first place.

I guess the problem here stems from the fact that my orientation as far as who finishes 1st through 4th in the conference each year is geared to the fact that the conference tournament pairs what are effectively the top 4 finishers in the conference standings.

No, it does not. The conference tournament pairs what are effectively the top four finishers in the conference standings after tiebreakers are applied, which is a different thing altogether.

In my reply to Bob I linked to the CCIW's tiebreaker explanation from last year's CCIW men's basketball tournament page on www.cciw.org. Here it is in its entirety:

2011 Men's Basketball Tournament Tiebreakers

Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan & Carthage Tiebreaker
Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton and Carthage finished in a three-way tie for third place at 9-5. Wheaton earned the No. 3 seed based on its 3-1 composite record against Carthage and Illinois Wesleyan during the regular season. The next step would be to determine which team gets the No. 4 seed, Illinois Wesleyan or Carthage. The Titans and Red Men split their season series and both teams finished 1-1 against first place Augustana and second place North Central. Illinois Wesleyan finished 1-1 against the next place team, which is Wheaton, while Carthage was 0-2 against the Thunder. This would give Illinois Wesleyan the fourth and final seed.

North Central & Augustana Tiebreaker
Both North Central and Augustana would be tied for first place at 11-3 and be declared co-champions. The tie would have to be broken to determine seeding and tournament hosting. Both teams tied the season series at 1-1 and also have finished with the same identical head-to-head records against each of the other six CCIW teams. The next tiebreaker, road record against conference schools, would also not break the tie as both teams are 5-2. The next tiebreaker, record in the last seven CCIW games, will break the tie as North Central is 6-1 while Augustana is 4-3, giving North Central the No. 1 seed and the right to host the CCIW tournament.

Note the first sentence in the Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan, and Carthage Tiebreaker paragraph: "Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton and Carthage finished in a three-way tie for third place at 9-5." That statement, taken from the CCIW website, makes it plain for all to see that the CCIW upholds ties as being final in terms of how the standings are to be interpreted. As I said, if you look on the CCIW website, you'll notice that the final standings for last season explicitly state that Augie and NCC were co-champions. (I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing that CCIW commish Chris Martin presented both Grey Giovanine and Todd Raridon with trophies.) They have been entered into the CCIW record book as co-champions, just as Augustana, Carthage, and Illinois Wesleyan were entered into the records as 2003 co-champions; Millikin and North Central were entered into the records as 1989 co-champions; North Park and North Central were entered into the records as 1985 co-champions; and so on and so forth.

The principle is the same for fifth place as it is for first place. Ties remain ties. Tiebreakers are only used for the purposes of seeding, not to determine the final standings.

The FIFTH place team does not make the conference tourney. Record does not matter one iota when it comes to who makes the tournament.

W-L record does matter, as it's the first and most obvious determinant of who makes the tourney. As far as the fifth-place team not making it is concerned, your statement is true. But last season the CCIW did not have a fifth-place team. It had three third-place teams, one of which -- Carthage -- did not qualify for the conference tourney. That didn't make Carthage a fifth-place team. It made Carthage a third-place team that came out on the short end of the stick as far as tiebreakers were concerned.

Its the top 4 teams in the conference as determined by the conference rules, including the rules used to break a tie if that situation comes into play.

As I've already shown, the conference website conclusively proves that the CCIW officially considers ties to be inviolate.

Carthage was the best team to not make the CCIW tourney. Accordingly, to me, they were effectively the FIFTH place team last season regardless of their record.

Maybe to you Carthage was "effectively the FIFTH place team last season," but in the eyes of the CCIW it wasn't. In a dispute over authority, I think that the Carthage folks are going to defer to the league rather than to you. Bummer, because I fully understand that "if I were the king ..." feeling that you're experiencing right now.

Conference play is orientated with the 1st goal of the member teams being to win the conference. The 2nd goal is to make the conference tournament---which only the top 4 teams do.

Again, it's the top four teams as determined by tiebreakers if necessary. And, as I said before, tiebreakers do not necessarily eliminate arbitrariness. Take for example the tiebreaker that determined that NCC was the #1 seed rather than Augie. The league had to go all the way down to the fourth tiebreaker -- record over the last seven conference games -- to determine that NCC would win out over Augie, since the Cards went 6-1 in the second round-robin while the Doggies went 4-3. But that's completely arbitrary. What makes the second round-robin any more legitimate an indicator of worthiness than the first round-robin? After all, they're all league games. They all count the same in the standings. Likewise, the second tiebreaker -- comparative records against the other teams in the league -- uses a descending-ladder system. That is to say, the head-to-head results for NCC and Augie against the next team down in the standings were compared to each other, then the head-to-head results against the next team down after that, and then the next team down after that, and so forth. But an ascending-ladder system is equally valid, in which case the head-to-head results for the two tied teams against the last-place team are compared to each other, then the next-to-last-place team, and so on. After all, why shouldn't a catastrophic upset to a lowly opponent count as much as a big win over a fellow contender?

In other words, the tiebreakers use a lot of arbitrary rules. The reason why they're effective is because they're standardized and they don't change from year to year. Everybody knows going in what the tiebreakers will be. But they won't tell you who is the third-place team and who is the fourth-place team. That's determined by wins and losses only.

Everyone knows this is how play within the conference goes. During the conference portion of the season the coaches and players focus 1st on winning the conference and 2nd, on making the tournament. If you don't make the tournament the best you can call yourself is the FIFTH place team.

Not true. If you don't make the tournament, the best you can call yourself is the team that finished in the first division but got left out of the tourney due to tiebreakers. And that's a big difference.

[izzy stradlin]

Wheaton roster:

http://athletics.wheaton.edu/roster.aspx?path=mbball&

Aaron Garriott is listed as Titan Q reported.

Freshman Matt Krause is also on the roster-  there was some question if he would play baseball or basketball.  I am not sure how good he is but he wasn't listed in Wheaton's previous news release announcing this year's newcomers.

[AndOne]

Wheaton roster:

http://athletics.wheaton.edu/roster.aspx?path=mbball&

Aaron Garriott is listed as Titan Q reported.

Freshman Matt Krause is also on the roster-  there was some question if he would play baseball or basketball.  I am not sure how good he is but he wasn't listed in Wheaton's previous news release announcing this year's newcomers.

I think Wheaton will field a fine team this season, be a tough opponent, and have a have a good year.
I don't think he'll start, but Tyler Peters progressed nicely last year. Nate Serenius was impressive on the JV level.
It appears Aaron Garrriott , at 6'4" and 215, is a linebacker in his other life. Matchup problems anyone?
2 of the biggest questions for WC this season will be !) Who replaces Jahns as the long range threat, and 2) can someone provide McCrary adequate inside help, both in terms of low post scoring, and cleaning the glass.

[AndOne]

So, in Theory Of Tiebreaking class today, Professor Sager advised us the 8 team CCIW had no 5th place basketball team last season. Carrying things one step further, it appears they also didn't have a 2nd place team or, for that matter, no 4th place team either.   

[Gregory Sager]

I think Wheaton will field a fine team this season, be a tough opponent, and have a have a good year.

... and lose once again to North Central in the airplane hangar. C'mon, you know that you were thinking it, and you know that you wanted to say it. Just give in to the impulse, Mark.

So, in Theory Of Tiebreaking class today, Professor Sager advised us the 8 team CCIW had no 5th place basketball team last season. Carrying things one step further, it appears they also didn't have a 2nd place team or, for that matter, no 4th place team either. 

Correct, correct, and correct.

This is how the CCIW finished last season -- and, just for kicks, I'm going to list the tied teams alphabetically:

1. Augustana 11-3
1. North Central 11-3
3. Carthage 9-5
3. Illinois Wesleyan 9-5
3. Wheaton 9-5
6. North Park 4-10
7. Elmhurst 3-11
8. Millikin 0-14

Class dismissed.

[izzy stradlin]

Wheaton roster:

http://athletics.wheaton.edu/roster.aspx?path=mbball&

Aaron Garriott is listed as Titan Q reported.

Freshman Matt Krause is also on the roster-  there was some question if he would play baseball or basketball.  I am not sure how good he is but he wasn't listed in Wheaton's previous news release announcing this year's newcomers.

I think Wheaton will field a fine team this season, be a tough opponent, and have a have a good year.
I don't think he'll start, but Tyler Peters progressed nicely last year. Nate Serenius was impressive on the JV level.
It appears Aaron Garrriott , at 6'4" and 215, is a linebacker in his other life. Matchup problems anyone?
2 of the biggest questions for WC this season will be !) Who replaces Jahns as the long range threat, and 2) can someone provide McCrary adequate inside help, both in terms of low post scoring, and cleaning the glass.

Peters did progress nicely last year.  I look for him to have a break-out year.  He showed a knack for getting the ball in the hole at times last year and now he is (at least listed as) an inch taller and twenty pounds heavier at 6'4" 190. Without knowing what Kvam and the other newcomers are capable of contributing, I think Peters could emerge as Wheaton's 2nd leading scorer behind McCrary.

[AndOne]

Conference play is orientated with the 1st goal of the member teams being to win the conference. The 2nd goal is to make the conference tournament---which only the top 4 teams do. Everyone knows this is how play within the conference goes. During the conference portion of the season the coaches and players focus 1st on winning the conference and 2nd, on making the tournament. If you don't make the tournament the best you can call yourself is the FIFTH place team.

*As far as giving anything I say credence, Bob seems to have developed an aversion to doing so. If I said "El Hombre Rotundo fell hard, and hit the floor like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup," Bob would probably say it was jello rather than vegetable soup!      

The three teams had 9 wins - so they tied.  It's really not that tough.  9 wins = 9 wins = 9 wins.  You don't even need to take off your socks to figure out that one.  Which would be good, because based on your continued immaturity, I can only assume that you are a result of inbreeding and probably have 12 toes.

bopol---

Although I disagreed with you, I didn't resort to lowering myself to the point of assailing your family heritage.     
I can hear the oinks emitting from your pen from here.

[AndOne]

I think Wheaton will field a fine team this season, be a tough opponent, and have a have a good year.

... and lose once again to North Central in the airplane hangar. C'mon, you know that you were thinking it, and you know that you wanted to say it. Just give in to the impulse, Mark.

Greg---I can swear on my mom that I wasn't thinking that at the time I was creating the post. But now that you mention it.......yes, I will take that bet!